Zompist Bboard Again

I'm trying to reformulate this with a verb that doesn't require auxiliary negation: 1′. "We only aren't anaesthetists" → we're everything but anaesthetists 2~3′. "We aren't only anaesthetists" → we're anaesthetists and other things too 4′. ?"It's only anaesthetists which we ...

Here's my two cents: 1. "We only didn’t see the Louvre" → we didn't see the Louvre, but we did all the other things expected of tourists going to France 2. "We didn’t only see the Louvre" → we saw the Louvre, and did some other things 3. "We didn’t see only the Louvre" ...

A totally unrelated random musing: Have humans made more transistors, or more things which aren't transistors? I think transistors win out by a large margin. This took longer to find than I expected, but I think I have a candidate: viral particles in the Covid vaccines. First, let's look at the tra...

A totally unrelated random musing:

Have humans made more transistors, or more things which aren't transistors? I think transistors win out by a large margin.

Seenku You're welcome 🙏 Initials: /p b t d ts dz c ɟ k g kp gb/ <p b t d ti di ki gi k g ku gu> /m n ɲ ŋ ŋm/ <m r ni n nu> /f s/ <su s> /l (j) w/ <l j w> Major syllable nuclei: /a ɛ ɔ e o (ɪ) ʊ i u/ <a c q e o x f j~i v~u> and so on for all <j v> /aː ɛː ɔː eː oː iː uː/ <a' c' q' e' o' i' v'> /ã ɛ̃ ...

xxx wrote: ↑Mon Apr 29, 2024 5:29 am Well, natural languages are nothing more than conlangs reworked by a very large number of fans,

This is not true

Bilabially trilled coronal affricates (advibrates?) are found fairly frequently in Sino-Tibetan too; some language (can't remember which, Nort would know) has synchronic /ⁿdə/ → [ⁿdʙv̩]. Wikipedia says Namuyi has a full set of bilabially trilled affricates /pʙ bʙ tʙ dʙ/ but it's unsourced (well it'...

I have heard it suggested that the Pirahã suddenly starting to use /tʙ̥/ around Everett was literally just a joke. Like they were bored and wanted to fuck with him so they started sticking raspberries in random words. Isn’t it also seen in Wariʼ, at least? Yeah. And Oro Win. EDIT: looking it up, ap...

/s/ is always weird phonotactically. Some say it's a vowel.

I have heard it suggested that the Pirahã suddenly starting to use /tʙ̥/ around Everett was literally just a joke. Like they were bored and wanted to fuck with him so they started sticking raspberries in random words.

This is precisely the situation I’ve been describing! The question is, why did that small percent difference even exist in the first place? (As I recall, people have actually calculated what the difference should have been to produce the amount of matter we see today. Wikipedia quotes it as being ‘...

Actually English phonotactics are almost identical to those of Latin, you just have to add some more sC onsets, a few more RC codas and then a indiscriminate post-coda /s~z θ t~d/. Suck it, Catholics.

This is precisely the situation I’ve been describing! The question is, why did that small percent difference even exist in the first place? (As I recall, people have actually calculated what the difference should have been to produce the amount of matter we see today. Wikipedia quotes it as being ‘...

Yes, if there was an equal amount of antimatter as matter, it would all have been annihilated, and the universe would consist of photons alone. (Which, if I must state the obvious, it does not.) In that case it makes sense that there's more of one kind than the other, since otherwise we wouldn't ex...

It’s surprisingly hard to find an answer for this, but the maximal structure would appear to be something like (s)(C)(r)V(r)(C)(s). For more detail see, for instance, Latin syllable structure in typological perspective (Lehman n.d.). I think (s)(C)(l,r)V(l,r,N)(C)(s) is better, with the caveat that...

Yes... and then we'd call it "matter." The sign is arbitrary. Sorry, I meant "mutually annihilated with all the matter". Yes, if there was an equal amount of antimatter as matter, it would all have been annihilated, and the universe would consist of photons alone. (Which, if I m...

That’s not what the problem is. Essentially: we predict that the Big Bang should have produced an equal amount of matter and antimatter, in the past. The question is: given that initial state, why do we see more matter than antimatter today? If there was more antimatter, wouldn't it of blown up all...

That’s not what the problem is. Essentially: we predict that the Big Bang should have produced an equal amount of matter and antimatter, in the past. The question is: given that initial state, why do we see more matter than antimatter today? If there was more antimatter, wouldn't it of blown up all...

Nortaneous wrote: ↑Fri Apr 19, 2024 9:02 pm ʙo͝o‼

Aaaahhh!

Shouldn't there be a difference in meaning for at least some verbs? I'd say so – "It's not mandatory to go" vs. "It's mandatory to not go". I reckon there's still a difference between "I do not want to go" / "I want to not go" too; the second is more emphatic...