Re: A Conlang Pidgin Game

Joe Mondello wrote:
>I like it.  Upon further inspection, the dublex list seems to have a lot of
>concepts on it that I don't find too essential (why include 'disparagement'
>when one could say 'say bad things about'), and seems in general better
>suited to creating a full fledged language than a pidgin.
Maybe it is better to use the Swadesh list.
My suggestion is: let's make up words (sourcers: our conlangs) to fill that list
and use that as a start.
From that point onwards let the pidgin grow.
I like the methodology that Amanda proposed. Would that mean we have
to use pictures? Or do we just use text, e.g.: (your looking at a pile of wood
and you hear the words "......")

Joseph Fatula wrote:
>> Well, it was just an example.  I was trying to picture a frustrated merchant
>> saying "I have wood! Do you want wood? wood, tree-stuff! you buy my wood,
>> no?
>
>I'd imagine a whole lot of trade languages out there formed exactly this
>way.  By the way, I've actually got a language where the word for "wood" is
>"tree-stuff".  The whole language has relatively few roots, but is very big
>on compounding.  If it'd help, I could give you a list of which roots have
>been most productive in forming new words.  These might be good ones to have
>if you want a language with few root words to learn that gradually develops
>into something more.
Personally, I'd be very much interested. My conlang relays heavily on
compounding. Besides that, I like Chinook Jargon that uses compounds a lot.
Iroquian languages are known for 'compounding' too.
On the other hand, part of the fun of creating this pidgin is to create
such compounds yourself.

Joseph, I would really love to have that list of roots. Could you mail it to me
privately?

Rob