(Sorry! This thread has been moved! Please read why and follow the link. )

[dewrad]

Hi Bob! Pakuni and Atlantean really aren't my thing, but I have been following your work on Sumerian with interest, particularly your translations here. I'm intrigued as to what level of confidence you have in their accuracy?

[elemtilas]

Any praise, encouragement? I'd like to hear that first. If anyone has any questions, that would be great. I would recommend tempering any criticism with abundant and probably surpassing praise. I am myself quite strict regarding my own unique and pioneering work. I don't join these groups because I'm still an undergrad. I actually do know what I'm doing and would like some recognition of being some 10 to 15 years at all this.

Praise & Encouragement! --
Certainly a lot of work has gone into this, which is obvious to me, and was years ago when we first met. And as I've said before, you should be commended for doing it. There are a lot of similarly obscure invented languages languishing for lack of interested scholars. It's my opinion that you could have picked a better one!, but we take what we get. And as always, I encourage you to keep working on Fromkin's language. Hopefully in this time you've managed to contact actors, her linguistics department, university library, and perhaps family in order to obtain any original papers that would forward your work.

On to the Work at Hand --
As for the links you posted, I did read through several of them. Larry, that's a lot of raw data! (And also a lot of fluff -- a lot of stuff to be waded through in order to glean anything useful from the data.) And also a lot of work in translation! I mean, Theogony in Pakuni?? Really? More power to you!

My encouragement is the same: because the data you present is so voluminous (maybe 20 times as much stuff as Fromkin herself ever wrote about the language!) and so scattery and so buried inside needless fluff, I'd like to see you extract the actual data (the stuff known from Fromkin's work) and distill that down into a useful and sensible grammar sketch. You say you have a BA from MSU (2009), and to be fair, some of your links appear to be like what I'd expect a field linguist's notes to look like; but I don't see any IPA in your phonology and I don't see a lot of linguistickey terminology. I don't see anything like a usable, finished product.

Like I said in my previous post: I want to actually see your actual work on this language, and I'd really like to see it enshrined at Frathwiki. Yes, I am, and have always been doubtful & dismissive of your claims for how wonderful and Earth-shattering the language is; but I have also been in favour of whatever kind of effort you are capable of in the matter of elucidating this invented language for for the language invention community.

If you are able to put together a scholarly grammar article for Frathwiki that's got all the known bits of Fromkin's language, that's what I want. Something like this. You know, an actual Pakuni grammar & lexicon!

Do it without the Bob, George, and Larry schtick. That got real old back in 2014. That's my encouragement to you!

[Bob]

...

[dewrad]

Hi Bob! Pakuni and Atlantean really aren't my thing, but I have been following your work on Sumerian with interest, particularly your translations here. I'm intrigued as to what level of confidence you have in their accuracy?

I'm actually fairly sure that Bob has me foed, so I can dispense with the niceties. Just in case anyone else was interested: his "Sumerian translation" is trash, constructed with almost zero knowledge of Sumerian grammatical structure.

"[SECTION A PAGE B ]" is, as far as I can tell, a simple word-for-word glossing of the English text with Sumerian roots and the occasional bound affix devoid of context. The Sumerian words selected are frequently wrong. A couple of examples: on line one "questioned" is glossed as bu. This actually means "to flit" or "to chase about" - the correct verb for "to ask" is the phrasal verb en₃ - tar. On line five, "old man" is glossed with namabba. This means "old age" or "fatherhood". A better translation of "old man" in this context would probably just be abba "father", or maybe šugi "elder".

"[SECTION A PAGE BB ]" appears to be an attempt at a "smooth translation" into Sumerian. It's genuinely quite hilariously bad. I reproduce it phrase by phrase below with Bob's own glosses for the Sumerian words and some commentary:

Code: Select all

cec        bu         -ani dug4 
a brother  questioned him  saying

This is just wrong on pretty much every level. The normal transliteration of Bob's "cec" is šeš. As mentioned above, bu doesn't mean "questioned". I'm not sure where he has got the suffix -ani from (actually, I suspect I do: he's misread a glossing abbreviation for "ANImate" - fucksake). Finally, dug₄ does indeed mean "to say, to speak", but this is not how quotations are introduced in Sumerian.

Code: Select all

Adda    cim    -zu  mu       -ak  -g̃u10 na-  gu7gu7  ninda  hi   bi       ud-ene?
father  would  you  approve  of   my    not  eating  bread  for  several  days

Assuming "c" is Bobish for š, then šim actually means "basin" or "beer malt". There are nine words transcribed mu in Sumerian: none of them approach the meaning "to approve". -ak and -g̃u are the genitive and 1sg possessive suffixes respectively, and neither can be applied to a finite verb. hi means "to mix" and bi is actually the bound 3rd person inanimate possessive. Happily, ud does indeed mean "day", but the plural suffix -ene is restricted solely to animate nouns.

Code: Select all

Namabba        dug4 -ra -ani -zu didi si, u3   -g̃u10 di         kul
the "old man"  said to   him you do well  and  I     have done  the same

For namabba, vide supra. -ra is the nominal dative suffix. I have no idea what didi si is supposed to be: I can only assume that Bob made it up. For what it's worth, di is an actual Sumerian word, one meaning of which is "to have a bowel disorder". I find this particularly apropros in the context of Bob's "work" here. Again, kul has a number of meanings but none of them approach "the same".

The obvious retort to the above would be "I'd like to see you do better!" Therefore:

šeš-e abba tukum.bé g̃a₂-e ninda-Ø ud didli-bi-a nu-e-gu₇-Ø, g̃a₂-e šàg-zu-Ø ab-húl-en en₃-bi i-b-na-tar
brother-ERG father if 1SG-ERG bread day several-3SG.POSS-LOC NEG-1SG.ERG-eat-ABS, 1SG-ERG heart-2SG.POSS-ABS 3DO-be.happy-1SG ask-3SG.POSS Ø-1SG.ERG-3SG.IO-ask
The brother asked him "father, if I do not eat bread on several days, will I make your heart rejoice?"

Šugi-e i-nna-n-dug₄: za gu₂ i-mar.mar-en, u₃ g̃a₂ ur₅ mu-ak-en
the.elder-ERG VP-3SG.IO-3SG.DO-say: 2SG Ø VP-thrive-2SG, and 1SG thus VP-do-1SG
"The elder said to him: you will thrive, and I have done the same."

I'm not saying that it's free of errors: far from it. I'm sure I've made a couple of cock-ups, but I'm damn sure it's more accurate than Bob's translation by several orders of magnitude.

[elemtilas]

Meanwhile, bradrn and elemtilas: why do you bother replying to Bob at all, and quite positively so, too?

For my part, Larry is simply one of the people who has (I presume, until evidence to the contrary surfaces) done something with an obscure invented language that does in fact play a pivotal role in the evolution of glossopoetry as a recognised art form. I don't think it's much of an invented language, and I really don't think Land of the Lost was a great or even memorable television programme, but let's face it: Fromkin and her language are firsts for us. As far as I know, she's the first actual paid language inventor! For someone to take on the study of this invented language is, I maintain, commendable.

As for Bob, or Larry, or George, or whatever they're calling themselves this week, I honestly don't think Larry is an actual linguist, though he claims often enough to have a BA in linguistics. I don't have a linguistics degree at all (I am, quite happily, an amateur (though I think well pedigreed) philologer) but even I can smell the rat in all those articles on his website. Those were't written by any trained linguist or even anyone who knows some basics of the science. I've seen Reddit descriptions of invented languages that look more linguistical.

If you think I've replied positively to him, that's fair, but let me be clear: that positivity relates to one aspect only: whatever work he has done with respect to Fromkin's work on Pakuni. That's it, end of story.

I haven't really said anything substantially different here than I said to him years ago on that "other forum" that he conveniently forgot the name of (it was CONLANG-L, George!, just to jog your memory of the last time you trotted out your "unique" and "world altering" work for the less intelligent to admire).

I really don't care all that much about his "translations" of Greek myth into this particular language. Talk about anachronism! Whatever floats yer boat I suppose, but I can think of dozens and scores of far better invented languages one could choose to study and create literature for! A hacked out conlang for a dreadfully second-rate 1970s kids tv programme --- just why? All the nonsense, the self-aggrandisement, the egoism. That I have no interest in or patience for. It's utter bullocks.

And to be fair: if it turns out he's got nothing (other than what is gleanable from tv) and has actually done nothing (apart from watching reruns and taking notes), then even that positivity will evaporate faster than a cup of water poured onto molten lava. He's been at this research project long enough to have gotten the original sources, and he's had time to put it all together in a clear and useful way. His bullshit I find to be more than useless; but my hope after seeing his recent post here in ZBB is that, finally, he's done some real work on Fromkin's language that might actually be of interest to the community, and not just his own "expansions" of the language for entertaining himself.

If that hope proves futile, as I'm suspecting it will, having perused his list of links, then there will be no reason for further positivity.

[Kuchigakatai]

If you think I've replied positively to him, that's fair, but let me be clear: that positivity relates to one aspect only: whatever work he has done with respect to Fromkin's work on Pakuni. That's it, end of story.

I see. I tend to not be interested in other people's conworlds much, maybe occasionally their conlang if it's particularly professionally presented, so I don't know anything about that.


(Also, for people reading this: elemtilas here replied to a post of mine in which I criticized Bob and which I deleted afterwards because I felt it was pointless. I find Bob unlikely to change anyway.)

[zompist]

Any praise, encouragement? I'd like to hear that first. If anyone has any questions, that would be great. I would recommend tempering any criticism with abundant and probably surpassing praise. I am myself quite strict regarding my own unique and pioneering work. I don't join these groups because I'm still an undergrad. I actually do know what I'm doing and would like some recognition of being some 10 to 15 years at all this.

I hope you get some useful attention to your work. I hope you're joking about "abundant and surpassing praise." Those things are nice when they happen, but they have to happen organically.

As for 10 to 15 years... did you see the thread about this board being 20 years old? Many members have been here that long. I've been working on conlangs for 45 years. I think you'll do better if you recall that you're among peers here. You're "the special language dude" among your friends on Facebook. We're all "the special language dude" here.

That could be disappointing if you're addicted to being special. But being with peers has its compensations! It's fun to be among smart people who love languages and understand conlanging, and we learn a lot from each other.

[elemtilas]

Praise & Encouragement! --

You ask too much and your quick assessment of my work is mostly wrong. But I know what you're talking about. This is the best I've been able to do, given my resources and lifestyle.

I don't think so, really. It's not too much to ask you to produce the primary sources that back up your extravagant claims regarding what you've done. In the six years since we last spoke (when you were still writing as George Mann, over on CONLANG-L), you've had ample time to write something less than a dozen letters of inquiry (one to Fromkin's estate, one to the linguistics department she worked at, one to the Krofft brothers (they're still alive and active!), one to the actor that supposedly has a copy of Fromkin's dictionary, one to the university library where it seems likely Fromkin's professional papers would have ended up). That's like an hour's worth of work and a couple dollars for postage.

In all those years, you should have heard sòmething back from somebody. So, you either have nothing at all, or you've got the goods. All your hemming and hawing don't do you any good.

I may not use IPA but I invent transcription systems which are even better those out there by language scientists. Because I specialize in writing systems. IPA is notably hard to type.

Bullocks all the way the around. You don't use it, most likely, because you're not a linguist and have just never bothered with it.

Many scientists do not use IPA, they use invented transcription systems or such.

Of course they did. They did just this in the 19th and early 20th centuries. Science advances, and they actually have modern tools now! Which you would know about because you're a world famous linguist!

I remember what I've written and know what you would be calling "fluff" and disagree. I write solid and insightful scholarship. It's not all like academic articles but I'm not totally some base amateur and I have spent decades now reading academic articles and such and have some sense of what my own scholarship could contain.

Sorry, but not really. I read through several of the links you posted. I'm sorry to report that I lost sight of all that insightful scholarship amid the heaps of fluff & nonsense.

You claim to be a scholar. You claim to be a researcher. You claim to be a linguist. You claim to be researching certain invented languages. Yet you can not describe one of those invented languages in a scholarly way; you can not show your primary sources. You discredit yourself. I will give you credit for the way you presented your gleaning of speech artifacts from the television episodes. Fair is fair, and that was good basic research work.

I may improve on these works in the future but you can tell from my website that I do a lot.

For a certain definition of "do", yes. Well, I gave you an example of a well presented invented language, and I chose one that you, as a world famous & well respected linguist, would surely appreciate since its description is written as if done by a real linguist. In all honesty, Larry, coming up with primary resources and synthesising them with what is known from broadcasts is just not that big a project. We're not talking about synthesising the works of Shakespeare on down to come up with a Theory of the English Language in its Cultural Context! I'm asking you to show what you've actually got from Fromkin, and what you've actually done to describe that language (or "decipher" as you call it). This is a project that should take maybe a fortnight.

My work on "famous conlangs" (conlangs from famous tv movies books) is a side thing to my research of the linguistics of logographic writing systems.

Well, we've just seen from dewrad how well thát research is coming along.

My research is not so sloppy or goofy. But if I said it was not sloppy or goofy, well, I would be exaggerating or trying to make a point.

People who will only read works published in academic journals are narrow-minded racists. I should be able to put my research on webpages and get recognition.

Bullocks. You yourself claim to be an academic. Every time you speak, we can hear the glorious strains of Pomp and Circumstance floating on the airs! You all but enshroud yourself in the glory of cap and gown and revel in the ebony towers of good old MSU.

If you were actually a linguist, you would know that we get recognition for scholarship when scholarship actually gets done. I think they call it call it "publish or perish". Since you're not really an academic, I don't expect you to write a whole peer reviewed article for some linguistics journal. I just want to see a nice grammar sketch of Fromkin's language, as she conceived and constructed it, so you can put it on Frathwiki with your name in lights so that other language inventors can study it too. Maybe even put it on Fiat Lingua and get yourself interviewed on Conlangery Podcast. I think it's more than fair to ask for that to be done up in a way that will be useful to the language invention community and to our posterity. I'm not going to give you the time of day for your egoism, self-inflation or your skills at flummery simmering.

Regarding great obscure conlangs that languish, I have even done some work surveying those. I go around facebook and here and try to encourage others to make more accessible these. But aside from the work of David Salo made available via his facebook group Constructed Languages, I don't remember any other scholars who have done much toward this end aside from my own writings.

So what? He's the guy that "extended" Sindarin or was it Quenya for the LotR movies. That's cool, but that's not what I'm getting at. I'm not interested in your "extensions" of Pakuni so that you force it to handle Greek myth. I'm happy for you that you've got that as an intellectual exercise, but to say that either you or Salo exercised "scholarship" for having done so is disingenuous to actual scholars. Especially since we already have the work of the bona fide philologist and linguist who actually made those languages. That kind of thing is fine and dandy for your own friends on Facebook or your own website.

I mostly focus on making my own conlangs and in deciphering and using conlangs from famous tv movies books or from further back in history, and even related phenomena.

If only the tv show in question were all that and a packet of crisps.

So, question: do you actually háve Fromkin's notes on Pakuni, or are just bullshitting?

[bradrn]

So, question: do you actually háve Fromkin's notes on Pakuni, or are just bullshitting?

Minor question: When did Bob ever say he had those notes? I thought that his whole thing was that he figured out every part of Pakuni himself starting from what little was published online, because for some reason he never got access to the notes.

As for the rest: I completely agree. It’s a bit long, so let me try to summarize it: Bob, you say that you are a linguist (not that we care, we’re all amateurs here anyway). Yet you ignore pretty much all linguistic conventions, making this a bit difficult to believe. So: could we see your results presented using these conventions? If you give us just that much, it will make your work a lot easier for us to understand, plus it may well give you some of the recognition that you seem to crave.

Any praise, encouragement? I'd like to hear that first. If anyone has any questions, that would be great. I would recommend tempering any criticism with abundant and probably surpassing praise. I am myself quite strict regarding my own unique and pioneering work. I don't join these groups because I'm still an undergrad. I actually do know what I'm doing and would like some recognition of being some 10 to 15 years at all this.

I hope you get some useful attention to your work. I hope you're joking about "abundant and surpassing praise." Those things are nice when they happen, but they have to happen organically.

As for 10 to 15 years... did you see the thread about this board being 20 years old? Many members have been here that long. I've been working on conlangs for 45 years. I think you'll do better if you recall that you're among peers here. You're "the special language dude" among your friends on Facebook. We're all "the special language dude" here.

That could be disappointing if you're addicted to being special. But being with peers has its compensations! It's fun to be among smart people who love languages and understand conlanging, and we learn a lot from each other.

Completely agree. (And this is is much nicer than my previous attempt at saying the same thing.)

[elemtilas]

So, question: do you actually háve Fromkin's notes on Pakuni, or are just bullshitting?

Minor question: When did Bob ever say he had those notes? I thought that his whole thing was that he figured out every part of Pakuni himself starting from what little was published online, because for some reason he never got access to the notes.

As far as last time I talked with Larry, several years ago, he had not. I rather doubt the whole thing can be "figured out" from what little is published online. When I saw the announcement here that further work was being done, I hoped perhaps he had obtained more actual information than he had last time.

I guess we'll see!

[masako]

I may not use IPA but I invent transcription systems which are even better those out there by language scientists. Because I specialize in writing systems. IPA is notably hard to type.

Just...no.

https://ipa.typeit.org/full/ < This link has been in my signature since before this iteration of the ZBB. And, not just no but hell no you did not ""invent transcription systems which are even better those out there by language scientists"", by which I think you may mean 'linguists'.

Dude, stop.

[bradrn]

https://ipa.typeit.org/full/ < This link has been in my signature since before this iteration of the ZBB.

I second this recommendation. I must admit that I don’t use it myself, but only because I find it much more convenient to use a dedicated IPA keyboard. Either way, it’s definitely much easier to use IPA when you have some way of typing it!

And, not just no but hell no you did not ""invent transcription systems which are even better those out there by language scientists"", by which I think you may mean 'linguists'.

I don’t necessarily agree with this though… IPA is excellent, but it does have its weak points, and if Bob can provide a reason why his transcription system is better, then I’m happy to let him use it. (Although ideally he should provide IPA transcriptions for each of his graphemes so we can still understand it.)

[masako]

it’s definitely much easier to use IPA when you have some way of typing it!

Of course, and that's the point. He has absolutely no reason to NOT use it on a board where its use is both widely accepted and seen as 'best-practice' in an academic sense.

IPA is excellent, but it does have its weak points

So does the Hoover Dam, but it's the best Dam for the damn job until someone develops a better dam. Bob, I assure you, has not.

Bob can provide a reason why his transcription system is better, then I’m happy to let him use it.

So far, his reasoning behind almost all of his work doesn't seem to amount to much more than "LoOk hoW GenIuS I aM"

[Vardelm]

Edited for reasons.

[bradrn]

Edited for reasons.

Sure, maybe that isn’t anything like good academic work. But as amateur work, I’d say it’s pretty reasonable.

IPA is excellent, but it does have its weak points

So does the Hoover Dam, but it's the best Dam for the damn job until someone develops a better dam. Bob, I assure you, has not.

Again, how do you know that Bob’s transcription system isn’t any good? Sure, it probably won’t be (most IPA-competitors aren’t much good), but I wouldn’t state that categorically.

Bob can provide a reason why his transcription system is better, then I’m happy to let him use it.

So far, his reasoning behind almost all of his work doesn't seem to amount to much more than "LoOk hoW GenIuS I aM"

This is true, but maybe this time it won’t be. On the other hand, if his reasoning does turn out to be like this, then I will freely admit that you were right.


Now, all of the above notwithstanding: I think I may have managed to find an example of this great transcription system, although I sincerely hope I am mistaken. From https://www.academia.edu/8303493/Etymol ... rt_Simpson:

The word cowabunga [ kau wa ba nga ] is probably untimately based on an African language … The [ kaa waa ] is perhaps somewhat like English
“how” but is probably from (perhaps subconsciously) the Tarzan movie [ uum gaa waa ] umgawa, and perhaps [ baang gaa ] is related to English bang. … There is a claim that kawabanga is based on Hawaiian “hey!” kupaianaha … pronounced [ kuu paa yii yaa naa haa ]

I think we can all agree that this transcription system is definitely not “even better [than] those out there by language scientists”. As I said, I sincerely hope that I am mistaken in identifying this with Bob’s great transcription system. (I’m sure that I remember him saying earlier that he effectively ‘dumbs down’ these documents for the benefit of non-linguists, though not in those terms.)

[masako]

Again, how do you know that Bob’s transcription system isn’t any good?

Because I looked at it.

Sure, maybe that isn’t anything like good academic work. But as amateur work, I’d say it’s pretty reasonable.

Ooh, that's unfortunate. You've swallowed all of the KoolAid.

Welp, I hope you don't spend too much time on Bob...those are precious minutes.

Oh, and just as an FYI: https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/Appendix ... /cowabunga

[Vardelm]

Edited for reasons.

[bradrn]

Again, how do you know that Bob’s transcription system isn’t any good?

Because I looked at it.

Oh, right — I had no idea you’d seen it. If you already said that earlier, sorry for missing it!

Sure, maybe that isn’t anything like good academic work. But as amateur work, I’d say it’s pretty reasonable.

Ooh, that's unfortunate. You've swallowed all of the KoolAid.

As a response, this isn’t terribly helpful for me. Alright, so you think I’m wrong in saying those look ‘pretty reasonable’; why? For me it’s very concerning that I’ve been misled into thinking something’s reasonable when it actually isn’t — could you give some reasons why you don’t agree?

Welp, I hope you don't spend too much time on Bob...those are precious minutes.

I try not to spend too much time on him, but I’m willing to take his work seriously if I find something interesting enough. (I do know that I have had some pretty interesting conversations with him before (in a completely non-ironic sense), and do believe that he has at least some stuff worth reading, even if the other 99% is complete rubbish.)

Edited for reasons.

No, and that’s the main problem I have with him. He presents himself as a very experienced academic who does all sorts of academic things — but his work does not reflect that in any way.

[Vardelm]

Edited for reasons.

[bradrn]

Edited for reasons.

I agree, and said as much earlier in the thread. Bob says a lot of stuff about how smart he is, and he also seems to respond poorly to any critiques; if he fixes those two problems, I’m sure his work will be much better received.