Re: Bootstrapping a cooperative conlang - red

--- MorphemeAddict@WMCONNECT.COM wrote:

<snip>

> For example, 'sky', 'sun', and 'fire' are as follows:
>
> sky
> something very big
> people can see it
> people can think like this about his something
>      it is a place
>      it is above all other places
>      it is far from people
>
> sun
> something
> people can often see this something in the sky
> when this something is in the sky
> people can see other things because of this
> when this something is in the sky
> people often feel something because of this
>
> There is fire in that place. =
> (a) something is happening in that place
> (b) people can see it
> (c) if at a time [at night] people couldn't see anything else in this place,
> they could see this
> (d) if someone is near that place, this person can feel something [warm, hot]
>
> because of this happening
> (e) something is happening to some things in that place [e.g. wood, coals]
> because this is happening
> (f) after this, these things will not be the same [they will turn to ashes,
> etc.]
> (g) people can think about it like this:
> (h)     this is something
> (i)      if someone touches this something, this person will feel something
> very bad
<snip>

> stevo   </HTML>
Fascinating. But for practical day-to-day use for teaching a conlang I'll take
a less precise, but massively quicker picture of a fire. These definitions, in
spite of being interesting for theoretical reasons, are really more like a TV
game show where the contestants are given a succession of clues and the first
contestant to buzz in with the correct answer wins the round.

Also, this guessing game leaves too much room for wrong guesses. The definition
of "sky" also seems to define the peak of Mt. Everest, and the "fire"
definition also fits a pile of glowing radioactive waste. The "sun" definition
could be construed as referring to the full moon, or to a street lamp.

--gary