LCK Book

[alice]

I'm still trying to work out what the hell Mark's thinking of with this.

[Delthayre]

I find it amusing, but also annoying that thus far the only reviews of it on Amazon.com are a three-star review complaining in effect that the book is too detailed and comprehensive and a one-star review full of outrage over the presence of breasts in the book.

[jal]

I find it amusing, but also annoying that thus far the only reviews of it on Amazon.com are a three-star review complaining in effect that the book is too detailed and comprehensive and a one-star review full of outrage over the presence of breasts in the book.

The one-star is admittedly stupid (also see the comments of it, which is a tug-of-war between the comment's author and a more sane commenter), the three star I read more as a "there's too much with too little detail".


JAL

[Aurora Rossa]

I find it amusing, but also annoying that thus far the only reviews of it on Amazon.com are a three-star review complaining in effect that the book is too detailed and comprehensive and a one-star review full of outrage over the presence of breasts in the book.

Haha, it looks like Feijuada (known as Steven Oliveira in real life) has a grudge against Mark and is venting it on the website.

[Although I would probably agree that including a section on Second Life is pretty tacky. Just because you've outed yourself as hopelessly nerdy doesn't mean you need to cram your other hobbies in there.]

[zompist]

I prefer to think of it as being ahead of the curve. Visualization tools are a great resource for conworlders.

On an earlier point, there is discussion of diseases in the PCK— see the index.

[Nannalu]

I think the booblady needs to accept that there are breasts in the world and they aren't always sexual objects.

And, to be honest, some of the Amazon comments calling it bloated are stupid. It seems the commenters think that to create a world/planet is just saying "the grass is purple and the horses are really goats" and that's it I haven't read the book but from my average astronomical knowledge you absolutely need to include the AU, tempurature and how the beings adapt in/&to such an environment.

Wow for n00bz.

[Shm Jay]

Haha, it looks like Feijuada (known as Steven Oliveira in real life) still has a grudge against Mark and is venting it on the website.

Added a word. I think boobman must have been unpleasantly reminded that he hadn’t seen boobs lately, or even at all, since he protests so much about them.

[Bedelato]

I've noticed a few other errata in the LCK:

Page 10:

I've put technical terms in SMALL CAPS.

Those look like normal-size caps to me.

Page 34:

A RETROFLEX r [ɽ] [s pronounced by curling the tongue up behind the alveolar ridge.

You got the IPA wrong. It should be [ɻ].

Page 40:

English /a/ as in pot may be central, but for some speakers it's a back vowel /ɑ/.

I've never heard of anyone outside Northern Cities with [a] in "pot".

Page 42:

There's a strong tendency for front vowels to be unrounded, and back vowels to be unrounded, as in English, Spanish, or Italian.

Um, what? Everywhere else I've read suggests ROUNDED back vowels are more common.

Page 43:

Fronted [y] has a corresponding approximant [ɥ], found in French- e.g. huile [ɥil].

I assume you're talking about [j] there.

[finlay]

I've noticed a few other errata in the LCK:

Page 10:

I've put technical terms in SMALL CAPS.

Those look like normal-size caps to me.

They're actually slightly smaller. But you're right, his typography is not up to scratch here.

Page 34:

A RETROFLEX r [ɽ] [s pronounced by curling the tongue up behind the alveolar ridge.

You got the IPA wrong. It should be [ɻ].

How funny, because both [ɽ] and [ɻ] are kinds of retroflex Rs. One is a tap and one is an approximant.
(OK, having looked at it, he is talking about American English specifically, so you are right)

Page 40:

English /a/ as in pot may be central, but for some speakers it's a back vowel /ɑ/.

I've never heard of anyone outside Northern Cities with [a] in "pot".

Makes sense when you know that zompist is from Chicago.

Page 42:

There's a strong tendency for front vowels to be unrounded, and back vowels to be unrounded, as in English, Spanish, or Italian.

Um, what? Everywhere else I've read suggests ROUNDED back vowels are more common.

yes this is an obvious typo.

Page 43:

Fronted [y] has a corresponding approximant [ɥ], found in French- e.g. huile [ɥil].

I assume you're talking about [j] there.

Nope, [ɥ] is indeed the approximant (or semi-vowel) corresponding to [y]. [j] corresponds to . pwned
(However, having looked at the page, if you were just saying that it's a bit unclear what he's trying to say here, you'd be right – it's not at all clear what he's talking about or why he's writing that)

[Bedelato]

It specifically talks about American r being an approximant. Which would make the proper symbol [ɻ].

As for the others, points taken

[zompist]

Yeah, I've been using ɽ wrong. Sorry!

I'm not sure what's confusing about ɥ. It's a sound beginners are less likely to know about.

[Bedelato]

I thought [ɥ] had something to do with [j] and that you were using [y] wrong.

Turns out I was wrong there...

[jal]

I finally had the time to start reading the LCK book I got for Sinterklaas (i.e. Dec. 5th), and I like it so far. I'm missing any reference to a-posteriori conlanging, and the section on aspects and moods is a bit sparse. Working through the semantics section currently, which is ok, although I think most noobs would be a bit lost here. My biggest complaint however should be easy to solve, and that's the gazillion typos. So my advise to Mark would be to have it thoroughly proofread next time. There's a typo or some other minor glitch on almost every page.


JAL

[zompist]

OK, the corrected edition is finally done. Thanks to anyone above who pointed out typos. (The corrigenda doesn't list typos where the intended meaning was obvious.) There are also a few places where I didn't agree that there was an error. (E.g. in at least one place Ran disagrees with my Mandarin grammar.)

Believe me, I've learned to use a spell checker. (For the first edition I thought it would be too tedious given the large number of foreign words.)

(I wish I could send out corrected copies, but it's not economically feasible.)

[Jipí]

(I wish I could send out corrected copies, but it's not economically feasible.)

Ebooks don't cost anything. But then, I guess you can't keep track who ordered a copy through Amazon.

[finlay]

I don't know if we've been over this already, but in your section on Aspect you're consistently getting PERFECT and PERFECTIVE the wrong way round: Perfect or "retrospective" (honestly, we should just learn to use that instead since nobody ever learns which way round they're meant to go) is what English has and defines an event in terms of an anchor point, most usually the present. Perfective means that something is a single event, which could mean that it's completed, or simply momentary. It contrasts with the imperfective, which is a catch all term for any progressive and habitual-like aspects; essentially, anything that's not momentary.

I only learnt the distinction because my conlangs generally have perfectives and not perfects.

[Bristel]

I think there should be a second edition!

I'm sure there are some aspects which could be introduced that were lacking in the first.

Plus, all of the typos could be corrected.

(this is probably a naive request)

[zompist]

See my previous post in this thread...

[blank stare II]

My copy, shipped about one month after the release of the first version, is now well-worn.

[Risla]

Just lent my copy of the book to a fellow linguistics student since he expressed interest in conlanging a few days ago. I suspect he'll join our ranks shortly.

[Bryan]

Just lent my copy of the book to a fellow linguistics student since he expressed interest in conlanging a few days ago. I suspect he'll join our ranks shortly.

God, it's like we're crack pushers or something.

[jal]

Just lent my copy of the book to a fellow linguistics student since he expressed interest in conlanging a few days ago. I suspect he'll join our ranks shortly. :P

God, it's like we're crack pushers or something.

Spread the gospel!


JAL

[Bristel]

Just lent my copy of the book to a fellow linguistics student since he expressed interest in conlanging a few days ago. I suspect he'll join our ranks shortly.

God, it's like we're crack pushers or something.

Spread the gospel!

HALLELUJAH!

I haven't found anyone to convert yet... but maybe someday soon.

[jal]

I haven't found anyone to convert yet... but maybe someday soon.

I have kids :). My daughter (aged 6) already attempted something, though she refused to take my advise on the morphosyntax :).


JAL

[Mr. Z]

I haven't found anyone to convert yet... but maybe someday soon.

I have kids . My daughter (aged 6) already attempted something, though she refused to take my advise on the morphosyntax .


JAL

I think they were joking.