#OligoSynthesis

[bio-basic-inc]

Are you searching for a reliable Oligo Synthesis Service Provider in Canada? Look no further than Bio Basic.

For over 15 groundbreaking years, we have been pioneering the synthesis of oligonucleotides for cutting-edge research. Our state-of-the-art facilities specialize in large-volume custom production, guaranteeing unwavering quality through automation. But that's not all! From Linkers to Fluorophores, Spacers to Quenchers, we offer an array of modifications tailored to your needs. 

Download our order form today to request a quotation or place an order!

For more details : https://www.biobasic.com/oligo-synthesis/ 

[ukfrislandembassy]

Kinda spitballing a hypothesis here based off of an I once saw somewhere in the conlanging corner of the internet (I think it was on an episode of Conlangery talking about extremely regular philosophical languages? @gacorley might remember), but I've got an idea about lexical structure, because it seems to me like there's two opposing trends in Language when it comes to semantic fields.

On the one hand, from the perspective of acquisition and to some extent production it's nice to have words that are derivationally related to each other, both because it makes it possible to 'work out' the meaning of the word even in the absence of actual real-world context and because new words can easily be coined to fill lacunae in vocabulary. 'My father is a weaver; What does he do for a living? He weaves' kinda stuff.

But on the other hand, from the perspective of perception you don't really want words that sound similar to each other, particularly in the same semantic field, because when you're talking about those topics, well, if everything sounds similar (especially in a noisy environment where you might not be able to hear entirely clearly) then you're going to start to get confused very quickly. 'Judges judge what judgements are just' sort of thing (see also 'oligosynthesis'), as well as of course 'Acronym and Abbreviation Overload' type phenomena (after all, there's only 26 possible syllables in an acronym...).

I think the fact that languages will vary between favouring one over the other does likely have impacts on learnability. The effect is not going to be major in comparison to other things, but there's unlikely to be nothing there.

For instance, obviously for a speaker of a language that makes a lot of use of derivation (Russian, say), English must be made harder to learn by the number of separate roots needed (like we have entirely different roots for the meat of domestic animals for pity's sake!).

But at the same time, for me, a native speaker of English, part of the irritation of learning Russian is that nobody is there teaching you the derivational morphology that enables you to make a guess at the approximate meaning of расследование from identifying the root (след 'trail') and building up from there (verbaliser -ова-, prepositional prefix рас- and adjectivaliser/abstract nominaliser -ние; the end result means 'investigation'), nor am I really that used to making use of that because in English you so often can't.

I'll note that this is kind of similar to a proposal made in Trudgill's Sociolinguistic Typology (2011), where he points out that small sound systems like Hawai'ian can be found in isolated languages precisely because all the words start to sound the same and context (i.e. shared background information between participants, more available in smaller societies) is more necessary to disambiguate what's being said. I think what I'm proposing is kinda orthogonal to this, because both extremes are kinda difficult, and there's several kinds of factor which can influence a language's tendency in either direction (English for instance has its several layers of historically more prestigious foreign vocabulary from having spent time as the language of an underclass, while 'pidgin-adjacent' creoles are of course forced to 'make do' with limited lexical resources they have, thus giving rise to stuff like Tok Pisin gras bilong fes 'beard'), but perhaps that's something for me to write about somewhere else.

[veliterbio]

What Is DNA Oligo Synthesis and Why Is It Important in Research?

DNA Oligo Synthesis is a laboratory technique of synthesis of small segments of DNA molecules known as oligonucleotides. These synthetic strands are important instruments for scientists working on matter the genetic makeup, molecular biology and new medications. The ability to design and produce these DNA fragments has done nothing short of revolutionizing science. It enables researchers to try and error with particular segments of the human genomic equation to analyze illnesses, design novel treatments, and potentially fashion individual treatments.

How DNA Oligo Synthesis Works

The process of DNA Oligosynthesis involves the synthesis of DNA molecules from nucleotides in a nucleotide-by-nucleotide manner. Cytosine is added after adenine, thymine is added next, then cytosine and guanine are added afterward. This synthesis occurs in small specialized facilities or oligo manufacturing plants, as they are commonly referred to. It is more efficient with input from the user and automated; the researchers input their timescales and receive the sequences they desire from the program.

The beauty of DNA oligo synthesis is its precision. Scientists are able to build the exact sequences related to any region of interest in the genome. It is for this reason that the tool can be regarded as incredibly useful in any research activity. Furthermore, to accomplish this process, an oligo analyzer can be used to examine the purity and accuracy of these sequence elements, fulfilling the needed norms.

Role of DNA Oligo Synthesis in the Research.

DNA oligo synthesis is the focal point of many studies. Researchers apply these synthetic oligonucleotides to gene editing, sequencing, and diagnostics. For example, custom oligos can be used in genetics to help researchers understand mutations and their impact on the body. In drug discovery, it is oligos that identify certain genes that cause certain diseases in the body.

This is quite significant for oligonucleotide drug development, especially those drugs that are made from synthesized oligonucleotides such as DNA and RNA and are designed to handle diseases such as cancer and other inherited disorders. The choice of the DNA sequence is the decisive factor, and that is where the synthesis process is so important. Without these tools, it becomes rather difficult to work on and deliver gene therapies and personalized medicine.

Applications in Biotechnology and Drug Development

In addition to research, DNA oligo synthesis is of great importance in the biotechnology and pharmaceutical industries. Large companies use it to develop diagnostic tools, work on vaccines, and even create oligonucleotide drugs. Oligonucleotides are also used in the pharmaceutical world to create quality patented drugs to target specific disease-causing genes.

This process is backed with oligonucleotide manufacturing companies that produce oligonucleotides in a large scale. These organizations are typically engaged in outsourced CDMO drug development services and provide development services to other companies to launch new therapies to markets.

Conclusion

DNA Oligo Synthesis is one of the most important tools for research work and biotechnology. From exploring the basis of hereditary to facilitating the creation of new treatment methods, this technology is in the heart of many scientific discoveries. Veliter Bio offers a comprehensive range of synthesized oligonucleotides at competitively low prices for research and pharmaceutical industries. For both small research projects that require oligo synthesis in small quantities or commercial scale projects that require large scale oligo synthesiss, we have got you covered.

[liangdraws]

Láadan, I get why she thought it'd be easy - picking the easiest consonants and vowels to say for the base form - but she fully expected the speakers to just do that without thinking about it. Admirable goal, creating a language you can't gaslight someone in - but that onus is on the speaker. (I'd say the billion ablauts of every verb saying how happy you are about it, that was more intimidating to its users than a particle would have been.)

This is why conlangers shouldn't study Navajo. It is by far an outlier in terms of how much complexity is in the grammar alone, and studying it will make it sound like the native speakers use all this grammar. Which they don't, when it's implicit, which the textbook can't tell you (since nominalized verbs usually need more structural support than unambiguous nouns, it varies highly).

The biggest conlang I had inspired by Navajo, Hlūf, I had to make a billion features optional, because of the story:

"Apisawekumumehaeskelelewihē" is how the textbook will tell you to write "Alright (concessive), let's suppose she causes you to be hurt over and over again." This is how you'll speak if you're giving a speech in parliament.

"Api, asa kumumehaᴉhwē aoe 'kelel?" is how a native speaker would assemble the sentence using a local system of mutations, and thinking through the sentence as it's being said.

"Appi assa wıᴉ kūhru *gestures of repeated punching* moha, meha meha owë?" is how my protagonists will say it.

That's supposed to be a native English speaker in a foreign land, making a clumsy pidgin out of the dictionary terms - isolating lemmas, using extra pronouns, and second-language-errors like mixing up "kumu" with "kūhru," meaning "to make" like crafting an object, not like causing an emotion.

So there was a justified artlangy excuse to make the language "complicated" - the story requires non-linguist readers to tell the fluent from the clumsy speakers at a glance. Over the course of the story, the reader should hopefully remember a couple words, and the isolating pidgin will make it so eventually they can recognize a suspicious keyword. Even spoken aloud, this wouldn't work. But you can pick up the pattern when reading comic speech balloons "fluent speakers use long words and choppy speakers use short ones." They may not know what verb conjunct slots or oligosynthesis are, and neither did I when I was a kid, that's okay!

Making a language "complicated" can have many reasons!

Valyrian is impressively complicated and difficult to learn, is it so complicated on purpose or did it surprise you with how complicated it turned out?

When it comes to complexity and language, any complexity you add to the morphology is complexity you take away from the syntax, and vice-versa. For example, when you learn all the noun cases of Finnish, it buys you having to remember fewer constructions with adpositions—or fewer verb augmentations, if the language went that way.

Syntactically, Valyrian is usually (MODIFIER) NOMINATIVE-NOUN (MODIFIER) OTHER-CASE-NOUN* (ADVERB) VERB. It's quite simple. There's not a lot you have to remember, and things can move around a little bit, if it feels right. You don't have to remember a ton of auxiliaries with different applications and slightly different usages. For the most part the heavy hitters (the nouns and verbs themselves) take care of things rather nicely. This is what complexity within the words themselves buys you: simplicity elsewhere.

The reason you get this is because all languages are doing the same thing: describing human experience. And humans are the same language to language. The other small tidbit is that when creating a naturalistic language—and it doesn't matter what method you use—you are, unconsciously or not, aiming for the lowest common denominator in terms of grammatical complexity. You don't have to do that, but generally if you're trying to create a language for humans with no other goals, you do. With a language like Ithkuil, John was intentionally pushing away from what is standard in human languages, and so there are needless levels of complexity that push beyond the boundaries of ordinary human language.

Now, when I say "needless", this is what I mean.

In Turkish, if you want to say "The girl is reading a book", you say:

Kız kitap okuyor.

Turkish is a language with noun cases, but you only see the nominative here. Why? Because the girl is reading A book. When the object is indefinite in Turksih you don't need to use the accusative case—in fact, you shouldn't. If you wanted to say "The girl is reading the book", that's when the accusative case pops up:

Kız kitabı okuyor.

Okay, with this in mind, you've introduced—just in the nouns—four possibilities:

Nominative + indefinite

Nominative + definite

Accusative + indefinite

Accusative + definite

In a maximally complex language, all of this would be marked. In Turkish, only one of these is marked. (Well, maybe two, if you were to say Bir kız for nominative + indefinite. Turkish has an indefinite article that pops up sometimes.) Certainly there are languages where all of these have some sort of marking, but then those very same languages will have other situations where maximal marking is possible but not present.

Human languages all have this in common. There are areas in the language where more categories could be marked but are not. It doesn't matter what the language is. This is because humans have limits for how much junk they'll tolerate in the language they're using. It isn't long before something that could be inferred from context is inferred from context. It collapses every so often (i.e. too little is marked and so marking pops up), but the unconscious goal is for the language to have a balance between morphological and syntactic complexity and also explicitness and implicitness.

A language doesn't have to do this, though, and so conlangs can be more or less explicit/implicit. Can they work? Certainly, but they may be more than humans will comfortably tolerate, and so humans may not want to use them.

Take Láadan, for example. Had Láadan been created later it might have had a better shot at being used, but this was 1982 before conlangers had started getting together. Láadan primary flaw is that it's trying to be a deep philosophical experiment while also trying to be a language a lot of people speak. That was never going to work. Suzette Haden Elgin lamented that maybe women didn't want a language of their own to use, and so the experiment was doomed from the start. A simpler explanation is she saw an ocean and built a train to cross it.

In Láadan, every sentence begins with one of six speech act particles (copied from Wikipedia):

Bíi: Indicates a declarative sentence (usually optional)

Báa: ndicates a question

Bó: Indicates a command; very rare, except to small children

Bóo: Indicates a request; this is the usual imperative/"command" form

Bé: Indicates a promise

Bée: Indicates a warning

And then in addition to that, every sentence ends with one of the following (also copied from Wikipedia):

wa: Known to speaker because perceived by speaker, externally or internally

wi: Known to speaker because self-evident

we: Perceived by speaker in a dream

wáa: Assumed true by speaker because speaker trusts source

waá: Assumed false by speaker because speaker distrusts source; if evil intent by the source is also assumed, the form is waálh

wo: Imagined or invented by speaker, hypothetical

wóo: Used to indicate that the speaker states a total lack of knowledge as to the validity of the matter

This is too much! Evidential systems in language exist, but they are so much smaller than this, and usually the markers pull double duty—and there's often a null marker.

Again, though, it's about the goals! This is fine for a philosophical language. And if it was simply a philosophical language, then how many people "speak" it is irrelevant. For example, John Quijada doesn't lament that after twenty years there isn't a community of Ithkuil speakers—indeed, he's baffled whenever he hears of someone who wants to try to "speak" Ithkuil. It's not designed for that, and so the metric isn't a fair one. Based on the structure of Láadan, I'd argue the same: the number of speakers/users isn't a fair metric, and shouldn't have been a design goal. Because while a language like High Valyrian looks more complex, with its declension classes and conjugations, Láadan is more complex in that it exceeds the expectations of explicitness a human user expects from a language.

Long answer to the question, but no, High Valyrian ended up as complex as I intended, and I don't think it's more complex than one would expect from either a natural or naturalistic language.

[false-cognates]

#2: “oligosynthesis” > “litchsomdeed”

Ancient Greek *ὀλιγοσύνθεσις < *h₃ligo-som-dʰeh₁-tis > PGmc *lika-sam-dēdiz > OE liċsamdēd > ModE litchsomdeed /ˈlɪtʃsɔmdiːd/

(Note: while ὀλιγοσύνθεσις is not attested I will act like it was, and so on for future posts.)

PIE form: ὀλίγος is one of those words that's really just inherently internally reconstructible (it's ambiguous whether it's g or ǵ but that doesn't matter), which is good because the only other cognate is Armenian. σύν is harder, and I've chosen to reconstruct *sóm per Beekes (if I balk every time I see a root that we don’t know the reconstruction of, I’m going to be doing precious few posts.) θε-σις is the much-clearer *dʰeh₁-tis, which also has an attested Germanic descendant in...

Germanic form: *dēdiz, which is kind of surprising, since because the PIE word is barytone you'd expect *dēþiz (and if it were from an oblique form you’d expect *dadiz.) But because attested irregularities trump regular sound changes in my book, I go with *dēdiz (if it were *þ you’d have “litchsomdeeth”.) Back to the first part of the compound: this too is pretty elementary; the initial laryngeal disappears, *g > *k by Grimm's law. (As for *dʰeh₁tis, *eh₁ > *ē, *dʰ > *d and *t > *þ by Grimm, *þ > *d and *s > *z by Verner.) *som becomes *sam.

Old English form: *k is palatalized by the preceding *i. *a is syncopated out (good riddance). *sam stays the same (it *could* become som, and if this word were real those forms would probably both be attested, becoming “litchsomdeed”) but *iz > *i in West Germanic, and the *i is lost due to high-vowel loss.

Modern English form: Final ċ is spelled “tch” after a short vowel. ē becomes ME /e:/, spelt <ee>, and this spelling survives into English (besides, it's really just "deed" anyway.)

It’s also arguable that *som would assimilate into *son the way it did in Greek and Latin, both of which liked prepositions a *lot* more than English does. However, it’d be without precedent, and it’s worth noting that German does not assimilate anything (e.g. anbringen).

[bio-basic-inc]

Beyond Synthesis: Comprehensive Molecular Biology Services

At Bio Basic, we go far beyond basic synthesis, offering a full suite of molecular biology services designed to support the diverse needs of today’s life science researchers. From custom oligo synthesis, plasmid prep, and cloning, to DNA sequencing, mutagenesis, and gene editing, our expert-driven solutions deliver speed, accuracy, and consistency every step of the way. Whether you're building constructs, verifying sequences, or scaling up for complex projects, Bio Basic is your trusted scientific partner from start to finish.

Explore our services: https://www.biobasic.com/services

[elancholia]

I guess it depends on how badly you want to avoid developing a normal vocabulary and where you draw the line on "functional". But I think that if you try to preserve specificity, you get speakability problems more fundamental than utterance length, and if you sacrifice specificity, you get comprehensibility problems that exclude entire topics of discourse (much more severe than normal homonymy).

Wary as I am of linguistic arguments that rest on purported cognitive universals, I think that people just don't recognize or think about objects as taxonomic strings of qualities. It's pretty uphill to coin a chain of adjectives that describes a phone (but not a radio) or duct tape (but not electrical tape) in the middle of a conversation. How much information do you really need to distinguish a nectarine from every other kind of fruit and vegetable, including ones you're not personally familiar with? My god, think about how many species of plants there are. People are going to standardize.

I think this problem is especially pronounced if you want an IAL that can handle conversations between speakers with very different contexts and assumptions, deal with sophisticated technical and scientific discourse, and so on. If you want poetry or something you can get by with if you need to find the bathroom in a foreign country, it's manageable, but if it needs to be "complete" in the way that natural languages are, that's a tricky hill to climb.

Of course, any language you don't already speak seems pretty uphill, that's the nature of things, but there's probably a reason that oligosynthesis is unattested in natural languages. Conlangers have loved the idea and loved arguing about it for 350 years, so there are tons of attempts to learn from, but the more functional projects generally accept that the thin milk of primes will curdle into ordinary words in everyday use.

Thinking about constructed interlangs in the vein of toki pona. Toki pona is fun but also intentionally impractical and I find the idea of a "functional toki pona" really intriguing. Could it be done? You'd definitely need more words than toki pona, and much more carefully chosen. But I think with idk...500 words, and carefully chosen rules about how you can combine them to form larger meaning, and careful grammar, you could probably make something slow to get meaning across but functional. I think for me the big issue would be assuring the compounds don't just become new vocabulary, youd have to be very strict about sacrificing brevity for unambiguity, or alternately, you could leave ambiguity in and accept having a lot of homonyms. Which could be interesting too! Poetic, potentially