I do not. <extent> is /EkstInt/.Ahribar wrote: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.
How did you decide on the intelligent beings?
Hmm... I've never heard ["Ekst@nt] before...Ahribar wrote: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.
http://www.veche.net/
http://www.veche.net/novegradian - Grammar of Novegradian
http://www.veche.net/alashian - Grammar of Alashian
http://www.veche.net/novegradian - Grammar of Novegradian
http://www.veche.net/alashian - Grammar of Alashian
- Space Dracula
- Lebom
- Posts: 111
- Joined: Wed Nov 19, 2003 8:10 pm
- Location: Austin fuckin Texas
- Contact:
I have <extent> and <extant> as [Ek."stInt_}] and ["Ek.st@nt_}], respectively.Jaaaaaa wrote:What he said.Maknas wrote:Hmm... I've never heard ["Ekst@nt] before...Ahribar wrote: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.
<Dudicon> i would but you're too fat to fit in my mouth!!
I've [Iks.tE~n?] and [Iks.t{~n?].Space Dracula wrote:I have <extent> and <extant> as [Ek."stInt_}] and ["Ek.st@nt_}], respectively.Jaaaaaa wrote:What he said.Maknas wrote:Hmm... I've never heard ["Ekst@nt] before...Ahribar wrote: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.
- Salmoneus
- Sanno
- Posts: 3197
- Joined: Thu Jan 15, 2004 5:00 pm
- Location: One of the dark places of the world
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.
@kstEnt and Ekst@nt, for me.
Blog: [url]http://vacuouswastrel.wordpress.com/[/url]
But the river tripped on her by and by, lapping
as though her heart was brook: Why, why, why! Weh, O weh
I'se so silly to be flowing but I no canna stay!
But the river tripped on her by and by, lapping
as though her heart was brook: Why, why, why! Weh, O weh
I'se so silly to be flowing but I no canna stay!
- dunomapuka
- Avisaru
- Posts: 424
- Joined: Tue Dec 30, 2003 11:42 pm
- Location: Brooklyn, NY
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.Ngo wrote:I think that a general tendency exists for conlang related discussions to degenerate into english pronunciation threads.
-
- Lebom
- Posts: 136
- Joined: Tue Apr 11, 2006 9:46 pm
- Location: Not here anymore. Goodbye, ZBB.
Re: How did you decide on the intelligent beings?
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?
Re: How did you decide on the intelligent beings?
Retrofitting, if I had to guess.
MI DRALAS, KHARULE MEVO STANI?!
-
- Lebom
- Posts: 204
- Joined: Thu Feb 25, 2010 7:26 pm
Re: How did you decide on the intelligent beings?
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.
The Almean amphibians just led directly to the humanoids rather than through a reptilian branch as on Earth.
Re: How did you decide on the intelligent beings?
holy thread revival, batman.
Kuku-kuku kaki kakak kakekku kaku kaku.
'the toenails of my grandfather's elder brother are stiff'
'the toenails of my grandfather's elder brother are stiff'
Re: How did you decide on the intelligent beings?
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 wrote: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?
-
- Lebom
- Posts: 136
- Joined: Tue Apr 11, 2006 9:46 pm
- Location: Not here anymore. Goodbye, ZBB.
Re: How did you decide on the intelligent beings?
Yes, actually, I was looking at it when I typed my last post Must have missed the first bit. Sorry, my fault.zompist wrote: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 wrote: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?
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.
Re: How did you decide on the intelligent beings?
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.
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.
Re: How did you decide on the intelligent beings?
It's a weird feeling reading things I wrote seven (!) years ago. My English has clearly improved.
vec
-
- Lebom
- Posts: 136
- Joined: Tue Apr 11, 2006 9:46 pm
- Location: Not here anymore. Goodbye, ZBB.
Re: How did you decide on the intelligent beings?
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.zompist wrote: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.