[Split Thread] Bob's Opinions on Romance Languages

What can I say? It doesn't fit above, put it here. Also the location of board rules/info.
Locked
Bob
cuneiform
cuneiform
Posts: 111
Joined: 09 Jul 2020 07:32

[Split Thread] Bob's Opinions on Romance Languages

Post by Bob »

Dormouse559 wrote: 25 Aug 2015 23:02 ...
I read the first few posts and the verbs one that it linked to. Really good job. It reminds me of Middle Catalan or Romanian. I've been reading a lot of Old French and Middle French the last few years, so I could get a bit into this. Have you worked out a vocabulary for it is or it just these grammar matters?

Of all branches of language families, I can read Romance languages, of all eras, at a very advanced level due to knowledge of Latin, French, and then what I've picked up over the years.

I did a recent post to Conlangs mentioning interlinear glosses I made for a section of Dante's Inferno. That also comes to mind.

I make references to Romance languages in my conlangs but I read so much of them, especially Latin, that I'm only rarely keen on making words like those in Romance languages, and not so keen on using anything from the grammar.

I thought the initial introduction to the post was so compelling.

At least with a conlang based on Romance languages and Latin, I get a feeling I don't get anywhere else. I can also read all Germanic languages at an advanced level but have not studied Proto-Germanic like I have studied Latin (how even could one?). And there's way more variety among Germanic languages than Romance languages, I can say at least offhand.

There is a certain "romanticism" about Romance languages which I have only really slightly ever gotten much into in my days. I mostly read them for scholarly purposes and deeper matters of modern nationalistic and identity ideas, and what even most people do with such reading ability in these languages, I do not know so much of.

But you did mention Venetic and I have some experience working with it and all other ancient languages and writing systems within Southern Europe. That's the sort of thing, in general, that I have.

But that's just chit-chat. Thanks for the post and great conlang.

Me, the most I ever did with a conlang ... well, I think I would say that the most I ever did with a conlang was deciphering Okrand's Atlantean back in 2006. Because the first time is always the hardest and decipherment is very very draining. But for translating into a conlang, I think I've really so far done the most with Pakuni from Land of the Lost and I don't know if any of that is online yet. But for grammar, I recently made optional expansions for the Vulcan grammar and have maybe never gotten so in-depth with a grammar of one of my conlangs. But I think that's unfair to say because even my very short grammar conlangs are informed by my vast, 15, years of studying language science.

You know, I'm actually working on a "grammar" of the comparative mechanics of all 4 major and 50 or so total logographic writing systems. It's about 15 years in the making. But when I work on conlangs, I either decipher those of others or make translations into them which do not expand much on grammars like those of Klingon, or Pakuni, or Atlantean, which are not that extensive but which I deciphered at great pains with my own hands.

And I specialize in ancient languages, which are likewise hard-won and profound of statement, though less for grammar than modern languages, obscure and major.

Of which I am certainly not ashamed. Nor is linguistics any less needed where writings are the most profound and compelling. :) But it is what it is. And it is not easy to explain nor easy to find an audience to whom to explain it.
User avatar
sangi39
moderator
moderator
Posts: 2702
Joined: 12 Aug 2010 01:53
Location: North Yorkshire, UK

Re: Silvish

Post by sangi39 »

Bob wrote: 23 Aug 2020 05:21
Dormouse559 wrote: 25 Aug 2015 23:02 ...
I read the first few posts and the verbs one that it linked to. Really good job. It reminds me of Middle Catalan or Romanian. I've been reading a lot of Old French and Middle French the last few years, so I could get a bit into this. Have you worked out a vocabulary for it is or it just these grammar matters?

Of all branches of language families, I can read Romance languages, of all eras, at a very advanced level due to knowledge of Latin, French, and then what I've picked up over the years.

I did a recent post to Conlangs mentioning interlinear glosses I made for a section of Dante's Inferno. That also comes to mind.

I make references to Romance languages in my conlangs but I read so much of them, especially Latin, that I'm only rarely keen on making words like those in Romance languages, and not so keen on using anything from the grammar.

I thought the initial introduction to the post was so compelling.

At least with a conlang based on Romance languages and Latin, I get a feeling I don't get anywhere else. I can also read all Germanic languages at an advanced level but have not studied Proto-Germanic like I have studied Latin (how even could one?). And there's way more variety among Germanic languages than Romance languages, I can say at least offhand.

There is a certain "romanticism" about Romance languages which I have only really slightly ever gotten much into in my days. I mostly read them for scholarly purposes and deeper matters of modern nationalistic and identity ideas, and what even most people do with such reading ability in these languages, I do not know so much of.

But you did mention Venetic and I have some experience working with it and all other ancient languages and writing systems within Southern Europe. That's the sort of thing, in general, that I have.

But that's just chit-chat. Thanks for the post and great conlang.

Me, the most I ever did with a conlang ... well, I think I would say that the most I ever did with a conlang was deciphering Okrand's Atlantean back in 2006. Because the first time is always the hardest and decipherment is very very draining. But for translating into a conlang, I think I've really so far done the most with Pakuni from Land of the Lost and I don't know if any of that is online yet. But for grammar, I recently made optional expansions for the Vulcan grammar and have maybe never gotten so in-depth with a grammar of one of my conlangs. But I think that's unfair to say because even my very short grammar conlangs are informed by my vast, 15, years of studying language science.

You know, I'm actually working on a "grammar" of the comparative mechanics of all 4 major and 50 or so total logographic writing systems. It's about 15 years in the making. But when I work on conlangs, I either decipher those of others or make translations into them which do not expand much on grammars like those of Klingon, or Pakuni, or Atlantean, which are not that extensive but which I deciphered at great pains with my own hands.

And I specialize in ancient languages, which are likewise hard-won and profound of statement, though less for grammar than modern languages, obscure and major.

Of which I am certainly not ashamed. Nor is linguistics any less needed where writings are the most profound and compelling. :) But it is what it is. And it is not easy to explain nor easy to find an audience to whom to explain it.
Beyond the first sentence in this post, Bob, did anything you write in any way have anything to do with Silvish, or Romlangs, or anything within Dormouse's thread?

Short answer, no. You made a brief "this seems familiar" statement (which is all well and good, but considering Silvish is a Romlang spoken in southern France, well, it's a little bit of a shallow response at the end of the day), followed by several paragraphs about your own personal studies in unrelated areas of linguistics, spattered with statements espousing your own importance within the field (of which, frankly, I have seen very little evidence).

As mentioned in my other responses, if this sort of repetitive, contentless, self-aggrandising noise continues, I will consider it spam, and I will act accordingly.

If you must post in somebody else's thread, could you please make the effort to keep it relevant to the topic (or at least follow on from it within your own post), and, for the last time, please, please, keep the "I've been studying for 15 years, I have a BA in linguistics, I study all 50 hieroglyphic writing system" to a minimum. You've made your academic and personal background abundantly clear in the dozen or so times you've brought it up, a propos of nothing.
You can tell the same lie a thousand times,
But it never gets any more true,
So close your eyes once more and once more believe
That they all still believe in you.
Just one time.
Salmoneus
MVP
MVP
Posts: 2022
Joined: 19 Sep 2011 19:37

Re: Silvish

Post by Salmoneus »

It's possible that, given his personal issues, Bob just doesn't understand what people are asking of him; at least as regards brevity and coherence, I think he does make some efforts, but just isn't able to understand social norms in this area. He may not understand what you're telling him - or why.

So, Bob, to try to explain Sangi's issue more clearly, [I've put the rest of this post behind a spoiler, so as to minimise the disruption to Dormouse's thread]
Spoiler:
I've colour-coded your post into eight categories:

Empty pleasantries - nice, polite, but fundamentally useless and unproductive encouragements
Tangential boasting - talking about how wonderful you are, in a way only vaguely related to the topic
Tangential ramblings - talking about things that interest you personally, but that are only vaguely related to the topic
Irrelevant ramblings - talking about things that interest you personally, that have nothing to do with the topic
Totally irrelevant narcissism - talking about how wonderful you are, in a way that has nothing to do with the topic
Irrelevant observations - saying things that may or may not be true, but that either way aren't related to the topic
Just talking - talking to yourself out loud
Actual meaningful content - a potetially useful contribution to the discussion

I don't think Sangi's point is necessarily about any one thing you've said here. It's more about the relative balance between these categories. In this case, this is a long post, but fewer than ten words actually constitute a useful contribution - and, to be honest, not a very useful contribution at that, but if you'd posted that by itself, it would have been fine.

More generally, we can divide these categories into three groups:
a) things that will hopefully interest other people reading the topic [pleasantries and meaningful content]
b) things that just interest you, but maybe potentially might interest someone else reading the topic [tangential rambling]
c) things that will only interest you, that nobody else gives a shit about [everything else]

Two really broad rules of thumb for commenting on forums might be:
- group a) remarks should probably be at least 1/3, usually at least 1/2 (ideally at least 2/3) of the total post
- group a) remarks should greatly outweigh group c) remarks.

We can think of these as the result of two moral principles:
- don't waste people's time. It's OK to try to judge people toward things you want them to be interested, but the more of the post is just your interests, and the less of it is actually directly relevant to the topic, the more time you're demanding from other people for your own purposes, which is rude and unfair
- other people matter as much as you. When you want to talk about yourself, how brilliant you are, how persecuted you are, etc, you need to "earn" that by showing just as much (ideally much more!) interest in and helpfulness toward other people.

[of course, these guidelines are variable; it's more OK to make a tangential one-liner, for instance, than an entire tangential post; and really good posts can 'earn' you some bad posts, etc; it's more about the total content of your posting over a period, rather than post-by-post, per se]

Finally, a third rule of thumb might be:
- try to group your comments by the above categories.

This makes it easier for us to read, and also tends to result in more coherent writing. So, rather than flit randomly between unrelated thoughts, as in this post, try to consider each topic one at a time. You might, for instance, begin with pleasantries, move on to content - creating goodwill from the beginning! - then moving on to the tangential ramblings (we can choose how much to read depending on how much goodwill you've created), and then sticking the egotistical boasting at the end (since everyone will ignore it anyway). This isn't meant to be a cast-iron system for every post, but it's a good model for how to improve one's posts in general.


And even more finally, it's worth bearing in mind that you boasting is pointless. Even leaving aside the question of how much of it is true or whether anybody believes any of it anyway... repeating a boast only weakens it. The more times you say something, the more it looks like you're lying. If I go to a restaurant and the chef comes out to say "we have passed all our hygiene tests!", you think "huh, that's a strange thing for her to say, but OK". But when the chef comes out and says "we have passed all our hygiene tests!!!" ten times before your starter has even arrived, you think "I will get food poisoning here" and leave. And in addition, when you repeat something, everyone gets annoyed, because nobody wants to waste time reading the same thing again and again, particularly when, like a BA from Michigan, it wasn't worth mentioning in the first place.

A good practical experiment, if you're American and have a TV, is to watch a lot of Donald Trump interviews, and then read people's reactions to them. Your posts read very much like the conlanger equivalent of Donald Trump interviews, and people react to them in a similar way, and for similar reasons, as they do to Donald Trump interviews. So maybe consider what you'd say differently if you were Donald Trump, and think about modifying your own posting similarly?


So, colour-coded post (put behind spoilers so that the uninterested can skip it more easily - that's also something you could try, incidentally!):
Spoiler:
Bob wrote: 23 Aug 2020 05:21 ...
I read the first few posts and the verbs one that it linked to. Really good job. It reminds me of Middle Catalan or Romanian. I've been reading a lot of Old French and Middle French the last few years, so I could get a bit into this. Have you worked out a vocabulary for it is or it just these grammar matters?

Of all branches of language families, I can read Romance languages, of all eras, at a very advanced level due to knowledge of Latin, French, and then what I've picked up over the years.

I did a recent post to Conlangs mentioning interlinear glosses I made for a section of Dante's Inferno. That also comes to mind.

I make references to Romance languages in my conlangs but I read so much of them, especially Latin, that I'm only rarely keen on making words like those in Romance languages, and not so keen on using anything from the grammar.


I thought the initial introduction to the post was so compelling.


At least with a conlang based on Romance languages and Latin, I get a feeling I don't get anywhere else. I can also read all Germanic languages at an advanced level but have not studied Proto-Germanic like I have studied Latin (how even could one?). And there's way more variety among Germanic languages than Romance languages, I can say at least offhand.

There is a certain "romanticism" about Romance languages which I have only really slightly ever gotten much into in my days. I mostly read them for scholarly purposes and deeper matters of modern nationalistic and identity ideas, and what even most people do with such reading ability in these languages, I do not know so much of.

But you did mention Venetic and I have some experience working with it and all other ancient languages and writing systems within Southern Europe. That's the sort of thing, in general, that I have.

But that's just chit-chat. Thanks for the post and great conlang.

Me, the most I ever did with a conlang ... well, I think I would say that the most I ever did with a conlang was deciphering Okrand's Atlantean back in 2006. Because the first time is always the hardest and decipherment is very very draining. But for translating into a conlang, I think I've really so far done the most with Pakuni from Land of the Lost and I don't know if any of that is online yet. But for grammar, I recently made optional expansions for the Vulcan grammar and have maybe never gotten so in-depth with a grammar of one of my conlangs. But I think that's unfair to say because even my very short grammar conlangs are informed by my vast, 15, years of studying language science.

You know, I'm actually working on a "grammar" of the comparative mechanics of all 4 major and 50 or so total logographic writing systems. It's about 15 years in the making. But when I work on conlangs, I either decipher those of others or make translations into them which do not expand much on grammars like those of Klingon, or Pakuni, or Atlantean, which are not that extensive but which I deciphered at great pains with my own hands.

And I specialize in ancient languages, which are likewise hard-won and profound of statement, though less for grammar than modern languages, obscure and major.

Of which I am certainly not ashamed. Nor is linguistics any less needed where writings are the most profound and compelling. :) But it is what it is. And it is not easy to explain nor easy to find an audience to whom to explain it.

[/quote]
Bob
cuneiform
cuneiform
Posts: 111
Joined: 09 Jul 2020 07:32

Re: Silvish

Post by Bob »

sangi39 wrote: 23 Aug 2020 21:17 ...
I read what you wrote here.
User avatar
Ossicone
vice admin
vice admin
Posts: 2908
Joined: 12 Aug 2010 05:20
Location: I've heard it both ways.
Contact:

Re: [Split Thread] Bob's Opinions on Romance Languages

Post by Ossicone »

I have split these posts from the original thread as they did not pertain to the original topic. If you would like to continue speaking on this topic, you are free to make a new thread.
Locked