Crossing our fingers
https://verduria.org/
You’re talking about this and this, right? If so, those are already looking much better and a lot more readable, although I’ll have to look through them properly first.Bob wrote: ↑Sun Jun 07, 2020 6:00 pm If anyone's interested in this post, I just today did two new ones that are less about me talking about what's going on and more about me giving actual examples, and not just links, to huge interlinear glossed texts! Only one explains the glosses in standardized scientific terms but the other gives a link to a very concise grammatical outline which would clarify most curiosity.
That is, I'm afraid, a pretty good summary.Raphael wrote: ↑Sun Jun 07, 2020 12:51 pm I guess the "problem", so to say, is that 1) Bob is pretty weird, but 2) conlanging is an inherently weird interest, so pretty much everyone here is to some extent weird, so 3) people here aren't sure how to handle or approach someone who has an "additional" weirdness on top of the "basic" weirdness of all of us here.
That's kinda the thing though...I don't see any of his work. I only see his attempts to rehash other people's work.
It looks like some of his newer posts are better now.zompist wrote: ↑Mon Jun 08, 2020 4:56 pm… I'm going to ask Bob to tone it down …Raphael wrote: ↑Sun Jun 07, 2020 12:51 pm I guess the "problem", so to say, is that 1) Bob is pretty weird, but 2) conlanging is an inherently weird interest, so pretty much everyone here is to some extent weird, so 3) people here aren't sure how to handle or approach someone who has an "additional" weirdness on top of the "basic" weirdness of all of us here.
Maybe that’s a personal thing — I’m more than happy to see analyses of others’ work. (I even did some of this myself a while ago.)masako wrote: ↑Mon Jun 08, 2020 7:31 pmThat's kinda the thing though...I don't see any of his work. I only see his attempts to rehash other people's work.
I think most of us here (just based on my humble opinion and very brief experience) would rather see original work from a member, something fresh, something novel, not really something that - while perfect on a blog - doesn't really jive with the typical work we see here. I am in no way suggesting that there isn't a place for his type of analysis, but given the norm here, I think the reactions to this particular flavor of weirdness have actually been fairly tame.
Why the sarcasm? Bob’s most recent threads (https://www.verduria.org/viewtopic.php?f=3&t=636 and https://www.verduria.org/viewtopic.php?f=3&t=635) seem to have a lot less of that stuff.
Sure, the self-aggrandisement is somewhat toned down, but the spammy un-scholarly style itself remains fundamentally unchangedbradrn wrote: ↑Tue Jun 09, 2020 10:17 pmWhy the sarcasm? Bob’s most recent threads (https://www.verduria.org/viewtopic.php?f=3&t=636 and https://www.verduria.org/viewtopic.php?f=3&t=635) seem to have a lot less of that stuff.
You don't do that, because I don't "present myself" and I only rarely reveal how I see the world. I show you my work. If you want to critivise it, fine; if you want to or don't want to comment, that's fine too.
Have no idea what you're referring to.elemtilas Sat Jun 06, 2020 2:32 pm
Ahhhh, I do what I can.
Possibly. Like I said elsewhere: it's your choice to make a fanlang, and more power to you! I read some of your translation work, and as I also said before, it's commendable to take mediocre raw materials and turn it into something that can handle Greek myth.elemtilas Sat Jun 06, 2020 4:57 pm
I have made Pakuni into a great invented language. I would say Fromkin did a great job on it. But the way she made it, it was a simple thing. I've expanded it a lot.
Have no idea what you're referring to.I'm making a statement about the importance of educating children.
?. I remember what I wrote that you're responding to.
And that addition was appreciated. It doesn't make sense to say I've been doing X Y & Z without showing what X Y & Z actually are. It's like show and tell without the show.I did this post originally where I just said what I wanted about what I've been doing.
And then there's all these people telling me to actually post something. So I added a bunch of links and then did some more posts with interlinear glossed examples of the languages.
There's a gulf of difference between "being mean" and "being truthful". I dare say, you haven't seen "mean" as of yet!But I don't really want to give them a bunch of examples if they're going to be so mean to me about all this and call me "tiresomely self-aggrandizing". I've worked hard and don't know who these people are.
That's your problem: there's no lines to read between.People got to read between the lines. If they can't do that, I'm not going to meet them more than half way.
I don't think I've misinterpreted, but if you think so, do show me where you think I've done so.elemtilas Sat Jun 06, 2020 5:50 pm
So you want the dictionary and grammar she made in 1995? Write me a private message and only give it to people who ask. I think I got it on a facebook group and can give you a copy. Most of it is in my links, which you totally misrepresent in your descriptions of them above.
Perhaps it would be wiser to use a less tiresome phonological transcription system?( I realize where my work is lacking and have read tons of academic articles by linguists. What these people are saying about my work and created transcription systems is tiresome. )
This is where you put yourself in an awkward position here, as well as on FB: you're interacting with people that are either university trained linguists, self-taught linguists or philologists, well read amateur linguists & philologists, knowledgeable language inventors, and the like. And you're right: we can indeed tell when someone knows what they're talking about and when they don't!I read all the replies. I have a BA Linguistics from Michigan State University from 2009 with a 3.0 GPA. I have studied linguistics a lot on my own since then.
But I specialize in logographic writing systems. So there's some things about linguistics I'm not so good at.
That said, a lot of the comments above ... People who know about linguistics and about the study of exotic languages, they can tell when people know what they're doing and know what they're talking about. My links and posts speak for themselves. They're not all polished academic articles but I would say that each one of them is useful or interesting in their own way.
Actually, I noticed that some of his other documents (particularly https://naviklingon.blogspot.com/2018/1 ... w=flipcard) do use a style consistent with a working knowledge of linguistics. So, at this point, I’m pretty sure he isn’t lying, but just prefers his own style of presentation. (Remember that Bob has said that his primary audience is non-linguists via Facebook, which definitely encourages this sort of style.) Anyway, I’m not sure how productive or useful it is to accuse Bob of lying about his qualifications: I for one prefer to judge people on the quality of their work rather than on the basis of which qualifications they may or may not have.Frislander wrote: ↑Tue Jun 16, 2020 6:14 am For all of the trumpeting of his BA, if this style of presentation is consistent with that he used at university I don't know how he could have even graduated. So either he's lying about having the BA or has earned the BA and therefore is capable of writing in a more coherent style but chooses not to (and I have my suspicions as to which is the more likely).
Then you either have grotesque taste, or don't understand what quality is...in any case, your white knight routine is lame. And I intend to ignore the entire thing from this point forward.
I was talking in general — not just in this specific case. (Besides, I was careful to avoid saying how much quality I think Bob’s work has, to avoid upsetting either you or Bob — I was just making the point that accusing him of lying about his qualifications probably isn’t the best thing to do.)
What on Earth is a ‘white knight routine’ supposed to be? And I think it would probably be useful at this point to clearly state my views on this matter:in any case, your white knight routine is lame. And I intend to ignore the entire thing from this point forward.
For my part at least, I'd just note that much of the reaction is due to having dealt with Bob or Larry or George or whatever it is he's calling himself this year before. And few of those dealings were particularly pleasant; some were downright distasteful. Having waded through the recent threads, it's clear that very little has changed in the way he presents himself & his work or in how he approaches others.bradrn wrote: ↑Tue Jun 16, 2020 8:39 pm Despite all of that, I still think that we should treat Bob more kindly than we have been treating him so far. I doubt any of the above things are due to any sort of malice — I’m willing to believe that they’re just due to (possibly wilful) ignorance of the norms around here, combined with passion about this subject. (Some of his posts actually remind me of me, at the many points in time when I have been extremely enthusiastic about a subject, but have gaps in my knowledge (which I am usually unaware of) preventing me from doing it properly.)