Things you love or hate in language textbooks

[Ser]

I love when a text(book) represents correctly the ela geminada. That is ŀl (el + middle dot + el; two spaces), not l·l (el + middle dot + el, three spaces).

The difference isn't about spaces, it's that in the first case you're using a Unicode point specified as an <l> followed by a middle dot (U+0140): <ŀ>. So it's two characters (<ŀ> + <l>) vs. three characters (<l> + <·> + <l>).

[Shm Jay]

I love when a text(book) represents correctly the ela geminada. That is ŀl (el + middle dot + el; two spaces), not l·l (el + middle dot + el, three spaces).

If I were the new government of Catalunya, I would impose a language reform replacing this character with something more obviously a letter, like ł.

[Izambri]

I love when a text(book) represents correctly the ela geminada. That is ŀl (el + middle dot + el; two spaces), not l·l (el + middle dot + el, three spaces).

The difference isn't about spaces, it's that in the first case you're using a Unicode point specified as an <l> followed by a middle dot (U+0140): <ŀ>. So it's two characters (<ŀ> + <l>) vs. three characters (<l> + <·> + <l>).

It's about spaces. Don't care about the Unicode characters I used, because it doesn't really matter.

[Izambri]

I love when a text(book) represents correctly the ela geminada. That is ŀl (el + middle dot + el; two spaces), not l·l (el + middle dot + el, three spaces).

If I were the new government of Catalunya, I would impose a language reform replacing this character with something more obviously a letter, like ł.

In Old Catalan <ll> became the symbol for [ʎ], so <l-l> was used for [ɫɫ] or [ɫ:]. At the beginning of the 20th century a new codification of Catalan orthography was made by Pompeu Fabra, who decided to avoid <l-l> because it could cause confusion (it would give the word the look of a compound word).
Antoni M. Alcover suggested to Fabra <ŀl> as a provisional solution until a new symbol was found for [ʎ], since their idea was to use <ll> for [ɫɫ] / [ɫ:] and another symbol for the palatal el, which could be <ł> or <ył>, or <yl> and <ly> (parallel with <ny> [ɲ]), or even <lh> (taken from Occitan).
The change was not made, as it's obvious.

Anyways, Fabra indicated that the ela geminada must be written with three characters (el + middle dot + el) taking up two spaces. The symbol, as a whole, existed in movable types and linotype machines, and separated (like the Unicode symbol <ŀ>) in not-so-old typewriters and PC keyboards. Now there's a project to restore the typographical ela geminada as a whole single character for keyboards and typewriters.

[Shm Jay]

So how about using λ? Then the new Catalunyan government could promote gay rights at the same time

Or more exotic yet, љ. Or why not borrow a letter from Devanagari and be the first Europeans to use Sanskrit in their alphabet!

[Drydic]

So how about using λ? Then the new Catalunyan government could promote gay rights at the same time

Or more exotic yet, љ. Or why not borrow a letter from Devanagari and be the first Europeans to use Sanskrit in their alphabet!

Or why not borrow a letter from Devanagari and be the first Europeans to use Sanskrit in their alphabet!

a letter from Devanagari...use Sanskrit in their alphabet!

a letter from Devanagari...use Sanskrit in their alphabet!

[Izambri]

So how about using λ? Then the new Catalunyan government could promote gay rights at the same time

Or more exotic yet, љ. Or why not borrow a letter from Devanagari and be the first Europeans to use Sanskrit in their alphabet!

I wouldn't choose any non Latin letter, but in case we should exclude the Latin alphabet, then Greek <λ> may be the best choice. Compared with the other options it doesn't look ugly at all, although it doesn't convince me as an upper case. In any case I find <ł> uglier.

ll
lloc, lluç, llamborda, enllaç, ametlla, castell, fill, ell...
Llorenç, Llucmajor...

lh
lhoc, lhuç, lhamborda, enlhaç, ametlha, castelh, filh, elh...
Lhorenç, Lhucmajor...

yl / ly
lyoc, lyuç, lyamborda, enlyaç, ametlya, casteyl, fiyl, eyl...
Lyorenç, Lyucmajor...

ł
łoc, łuç, łamborda, enłaç, ametła, casteł, fił, eł...
Łorenç, Łucmajor...

λ
λoc, λuç, λamborda, enλaç, ametλa, casteλ, fiλ, eλ...
Λorenç, Λucmajor...

[Ser]

I love when a text(book) represents correctly the ela geminada. That is ŀl (el + middle dot + el; two spaces), not l·l (el + middle dot + el, three spaces).

The difference isn't about spaces, it's that in the first case you're using a Unicode point specified as an <l> followed by a middle dot (U+0140): <ŀ>. So it's two characters (<ŀ> + <l>) vs. three characters (<l> + <·> + <l>).

It's about spaces. Don't care about the Unicode characters I used, because it doesn't really matter.

It's not about spaces. And even then spaces are Unicode points too: but ones with no associated glyph. The difference you posted above was however about these Unicode characters only, <ŀ> vs. <l>+<·>.

If there's people who want to make a whole new character as <l·l> that's something different still.

[Jipí]

ल
लoc, लuç, लamborda, enलaç, ametलa, casteल, fiल, eल...
लorenç, लucmajor...

You asked for it, you get it. D:

Even Georgian or Armenian would probably look more in line than that.

[clawgrip]

How far can we take this joke until it is not funny anymore

ㄌoc, ㄌuç, ㄌamborda, enㄌaç, ametㄌa, casteㄌ, fiㄌ, eㄌ...
ㄌorenç, ㄌucmajor...

[Salmoneus]

I love when a text(book) represents correctly the ela geminada. That is ŀl (el + middle dot + el; two spaces), not l·l (el + middle dot + el, three spaces).

The difference isn't about spaces, it's that in the first case you're using a Unicode point specified as an <l> followed by a middle dot (U+0140): <ŀ>. So it's two characters (<ŀ> + <l>) vs. three characters (<l> + <·> + <l>).

It's about spaces. Don't care about the Unicode characters I used, because it doesn't really matter.

It's not about spaces. And even then spaces are Unicode points too: but ones with no associated glyph. The difference you posted above was however about these Unicode characters only, <ŀ> vs. <l>+<·>.

If there's people who want to make a whole new character as <l·l> that's something different still.

I'm not sure you're getting it. Unicode isn't the language of the gods - it's just one way that we can regularise the presentation of writing in a computerised format. A space, for instance, is not a Unicode character - though there may happen to be a unicode character to use in programming the depiction of a space. If the difference in reality is that there are actually three symbols in two spaces, then that's the difference... if Unicode doesn't portray it that way, then there's just a problem in Unicode. [Wouldn't be the first time Unicode people failed to read the small print of the writing systems they're trying to incorporate]. Reality trumps Unicode.

[Ser]

I'm not sure you're getting it. Unicode isn't the language of the gods - it's just one way that we can regularise the presentation of writing in a computerised format. A space, for instance, is not a Unicode character - though there may happen to be a unicode character to use in programming the depiction of a space. If the difference in reality is that there are actually three symbols in two spaces, then that's the difference... if Unicode doesn't portray it that way, then there's just a problem in Unicode. [Wouldn't be the first time Unicode people failed to read the small print of the writing systems they're trying to incorporate]. Reality trumps Unicode.

Oh, I see. Thanks for the clarification. Not sarcastic!

[Jipí]

How far can we take this joke until it is not funny anymore

Was it ever funny?~

[Nortaneous]

լoc, լuç, լamborda, enլaç, ametլa, casteլ, fiլ, eլ

[Izambri]

I love when a text(book) represents correctly the ela geminada. That is ŀl (el + middle dot + el; two spaces), not l·l (el + middle dot + el, three spaces).

The difference isn't about spaces, it's that in the first case you're using a Unicode point specified as an <l> followed by a middle dot (U+0140): <ŀ>. So it's two characters (<ŀ> + <l>) vs. three characters (<l> + <·> + <l>).

It's about spaces. Don't care about the Unicode characters I used, because it doesn't really matter.

It's not about spaces. And even then spaces are Unicode points too: but ones with no associated glyph. The difference you posted above was however about these Unicode characters only, <ŀ> vs. <l>+<·>.

It's about spaces. If I used Unicode characters is because I'm writing with a keyboard.

Yeah, well... think again.

If there's people who want to make a whole new character as <l·l> that's something different still.

No. There's people who wants to redo ela geminada as a whole two space character, not three. This means the symbol would look <ŀl> (2 spaces), not <l·l> (3 spaces). "Whole" means that we should type it in with one key, the same way we type in <ç> or <ñ> with one single key.

[Shm Jay]

What’s wrong with Lj lj? That’s how they write it in Ljubljana.

Though if you borrow from Sanskrit, I recommend ॡ ḹ, because Sanskrit doesn’t really use it for anything and it needs employment.

[Izambri]

What’s wrong with Lj lj? That’s how they write it in Ljubljana.

<Lj> wouldn't work well in Catalan because it's a valid digraph to represent [ɫd͡ʒ]. We find it in aljama, aljamia, aljamiat, aljava, aljub, aljuba, aljubar, aljuber, seljúcida and de maljust.

[GrinningManiac]

How about an L with a flick below it - like how they adapt Cyrillic for Chukchi.

ȴoc, ȴuç, ȴamborda, enȴaç, ametȴa, casteȴ, fiȴ, eȴ

[Pthagnar]

What’s wrong with Lj lj? That’s how they write it in Ljubljana.

<Lj> wouldn't work well in Catalan because it's a valid digraph to represent [ɫd͡ʒ]. We find it in aljama, aljamia, aljamiat, aljava, aljub, aljuba, aljubar, aljuber, seljúcida and de maljust.

are they all at morpheme boundaries? idk catalan but they look it

[Jipí]

Looks more like Arabic loans to me, except for maljust.

[Shm Jay]

There’s always Ļļ, which is used in Latvian.

[marconatrix]

There’s always Ļļ, which is used in Latvian.

Though if you look at e.g. Youtube comments, you'll see that they often have to substitute lj for ļ, and similarly for other characters with diacritics. To be fair though ļ is part of an overall system, ņ is equivalent to ñ for example, and there's ķ, ģ and ŗ, although the last was outlawed by the Soviets and is only used by overseas exiles apparently ...

[Melteor]

The thing I most like about the lojban grammar is its use of primitive predicates. While I think a lot of the (in Framenet, "non-core") arguments could be carted off to prepositions (which are another story) I tnk it's really useful to have a basic set of predicates, and Framenet and lojban allows you to extend those predicates maximally.

Also really useful is a good explanation of the prepositions in a cognitive linguistics kind of way. It's even better when the schemas are illustrated. Antonyms are maybe a little less work, but I don't often see dictionaries with definitions that include 'equipollent', 'polar', or 'mixed' in them. Look at the pictures in the Ithkuil grammar.

[Qwynegold]

I think there should be a vocabulary list to each lesson. That makes it easy to study and test yourself on glosses. I'm thinking that the translation of each word shouldn't be too long. That just makes them harder to memorize.

I'm not saying that such Latin books give long "translations" for words, but that they describe their usage. Here's an example from Keller and Russell's Learn to Read Latin, on the entry animus:

In the Vocabulary list:

• • [...]
    vīta, vītae f. life
    animus, animī m. (rational) soul, mind; spirit; in pl., strong feelings
    arma, armōrum n. pl. arms, weapons
    [...]

And then in the section of Vocabulary Notes:

• • animus, animī m. is the "(rational) soul" or "mind" of a human being. It is distinct from anima, which is the physical soul, that part of a human that would descend to the underworld. By comparison, Greek and English have one word, psychē and "soul" respectively, that is used for both. animus may also mean "heart" as the source of emotion and passion, or it may indicate a specific passion. in the plural, it often means "spirits" in the sense of "strong feelings," and in certain contexts "anger," "courage," or "pride." (Page 25.)

Mm. I think that when translating a word, they don't need to provide every possible synonym, but if a word has several different meanings in the other language, then of course those should be provided. For particularly "untranslateable" words like animus in your example, I think it's good to have some kind of note somewhere in the same chapter that explains it better.

[Ambrisio]

How far can we take this joke until it is not funny anymore

ㄌoc, ㄌuç, ㄌamborda, enㄌaç, ametㄌa, casteㄌ, fiㄌ, eㄌ...
ㄌorenç, ㄌucmajor...

藖oc, 藖uç, 藖amborda, en藖aç, amet藖a, caste藖, fi藖, e藖...
藖orenç, 藖ucmajor...