Name That Language!

[cedh]

Your post would be on-topic in the game's thread.

Yes, I agree. Could we get this discussion moved to that thread please? (I don’t regularly visit this thread so only just saw this discussion now…)

Done.

[bradrn]

Your post would be on-topic in the game's thread.

Yes, I agree. Could we get this discussion moved to that thread please? (I don’t regularly visit this thread so only just saw this discussion now…)

Done.

Thank you!

[Karch]

Vazega, mbilegana zerabilegara tevukwagha
kwanna dabatlegan kebaramagha;
ghaya dadadaga ma xuda teghala:
Batlambatleg kebarama Dadamazhigilla,
geramnagirega kedulaxana.

[Zju]

Is this old rules, new rules?

[Karch]

I personally find the "new" rules rather counterproductive - for me, the fun is in narrowing the language down, not in blindly guessing.

[bradrn]

Cushitic?

(As for rules, let’s maybe wait on any changes until we’ve all agreed to them.)

[fusijui]

I personally find the "new" rules rather counterproductive - for me, the fun is in narrowing the language down, not in blindly guessing.

... both of which I find totally tedious and pointless; but fortunately those aren't the only options. Anyway, no surprise that I prefer the 'new rules' recently proposed, FWIW.

[Richard W]

As to the rules, does looking up a place name automatically disqualify one as a filthy Googlist? Obviously one is disqualified if one then stumbles into the text.

[Richard W]

Cushitic?

(As for rules, let’s maybe wait on any changes until we’ve all agreed to them.)

I'd really like a rule that said that you had to give a reason for such guesses. Anyway, as Karch is indisposed or otherwise engaged (I know not which), phylogenetically close, but wrong.

[fusijui]

How about observing a hard limit on the total number of 'narrowing down' questions for each puzzle? I mean, this thread keeps turning into a game of Twenty Questions but with no actual limit to just twenty -- which basically turns this into a process that would be better automated. (There must already be apps for that.) So suppose we cap it at half a dozen tree-tracing questions -- for everyone, not per contestant?

Aside from discouraging and making more difficult that kind of strategy, it might make it slightly more interactive, in that we'd have to pay better attention to who's asked exactly what and how many chances are left for everyone to share.

At the same time, I'm really OK with each puzzle-presenter adopting their own standards on what kinds of questions they answer, how they answer them, and how long they want to let it all run before they call it and reveal the answer. Does there have to be One Rational Tidy System Allowing Correct Determination of Winnerdom?

[bradrn]

Cushitic?

(As for rules, let’s maybe wait on any changes until we’ve all agreed to them.)

I'd really like a rule that said that you had to give a reason for such guesses.

So would I!

Anyway, as Karch is indisposed or otherwise engaged (I know not which), phylogenetically close, but wrong.

Hmm… Omotic in that case? That’s pretty ‘phylogenetically close’.

How about observing a hard limit on the total number of 'narrowing down' questions for each puzzle? I mean, this thread keeps turning into a game of Twenty Questions but with no actual limit to just twenty -- which basically turns this into a process that would be better automated. (There must already be apps for that.) So suppose we cap it at half a dozen tree-tracing questions -- for everyone, not per contestant?

Aside from discouraging and making more difficult that kind of strategy, it might make it slightly more interactive, in that we'd have to pay better attention to who's asked exactly what and how many chances are left for everyone to share.

It’s an idea… but I thought the aim was to get rid of tree-tracing altogether? As for interactivity, I know that I pay attention to those things anyway.

At the same time, I'm really OK with each puzzle-presenter adopting their own standards on what kinds of questions they answer, how they answer them, and how long they want to let it all run before they call it and reveal the answer.

I’m not sure I’m totally in favour of this idea… ‘how long they want to let it all run’ should definitely be in the purview of the presenter, but it might be a good idea to come to a consensus on which questions we can ask.

Does there have to be One Rational Tidy System Allowing Correct Determination of Winnerdom?

My thought behind that suggestion is that it might avoid arguments of the form, ‘My guess of Greek was definitely closer than his guess of Maybrat, how dare you suggest he won!’

[Karch]

It's neither Cushitic nor Omotic.

[bradrn]

Chadic then?

[fusijui]

At the same time, I'm really OK with each puzzle-presenter adopting their own standards on what kinds of questions they answer, how they answer them, and how long they want to let it all run before they call it and reveal the answer.

I’m not sure I’m totally in favour of this idea… ‘how long they want to let it all run’ should definitely be in the purview of the presenter, but it might be a good idea to come to a consensus on which questions we can ask.

Does there have to be One Rational Tidy System Allowing Correct Determination of Winnerdom?

My thought behind that suggestion is that it might avoid arguments of the form, ‘My guess of Greek was definitely closer than his guess of Maybrat, how dare you suggest he won!’

Well, as long as people playing have the need to be Winners in that way, I think the rules -- whatever they are -- can't avoid being disputed and tested all the time.

[Pabappa]

honrstly my instinct is to just tell you all to stop fussing about the rules since it's not a competitive game. Nobody's keeping score, so there's no way to lose. We're here to have fun.

My words would probably have more meaning if i were actually participating in the game myself .... i played a few rounds and actually got it right once .... i dont even remember how .... but the last few rounds have been such stumpers that my guesses have been completely wrong.

But even so, that's my suggestion .... let's allow the rules to be fungible and if we really get to the point where one person is upset that someone else stole their victory, then we'll just say that they both won. and if the person complaining is the one who hosted the round, well .... I dont know what to say, ...we did our best to play the game.

[Karch]

It is indeed Chadic!

[bradrn]

Well, as long as people playing have the need to be Winners in that way, I think the rules -- whatever they are -- can't avoid being disputed and tested all the time.

I don’t have a need to win as such, but given that the winner gets to pick the next text, I do see the issue of deciding the winner as being of some importance!

It is indeed Chadic!

Oh, no… here we go with the tree-tracing again…

(Further suggestion for the rules: ‘no-one is allowed to pick a language from Sino-Tibetan, Austronesian or Afroasiatic’)

Anyway, West Chadic? In any case, it doesn’t look much like Biu-Mandara.

[Richard W]

honrstly my instinct is to just tell you all to stop fussing about the rules since it's not a competitive game. Nobody's keeping score, so there's no way to lose. We're here to have fun.

My words would probably have more meaning if i were actually participating in the game myself .... i played a few rounds and actually got it right once ....

How would you know without keeping a personal score, albeit boolean?

[Richard W]

Anyway, West Chadic? In any case, it doesn’t look much like Biu-Mandara.

WRONG! Though I'll concede that that passage doesn't look much like the Mandara version.

[bradrn]

Actually, looking at the sample text again, is it spoken in Cameroon by any chance?

EDIT: Having a closer look, perhaps not… even though the use of ⟨zh gh⟩ matches up, the use of ⟨kw tl⟩ doesn’t. Still, it’s worth a guess.