Re: ANNOUNCE: My new conlang S11
|From:||Henrik Theiling <theiling@...>|
|Date:||Friday, March 11, 2005, 11:58|
"H. S. Teoh" <hsteoh@...> writes:
> On Tue, Mar 08, 2005 at 03:03:04PM +0100, Henrik Theiling wrote:
> > This is a difference: it's not a goal for me. However, becoming able
> > to at least pronounce the langs is becoming a more and more important
> > goal for me, especially after listening to the impressive sound
> > samples that have recently be posted here.
> Would fluency become a goal for you if, by some crazy circumstances,
> there would be conlang meetings where people actually conversed in
> their conlangs? ;-)
Hmm, how exactly should I imagine that meeting? Everyone talking in
their own language and no-one understanding? :-P
No, I don't think it's becoming a goal. But maybe a language I will
once create appeals to me in such a way that I just have to learn it.
Who knows? :-)
> > This is a bit strange to me: the aspect is totally different in
> > 'acquire' and 'have'. No perfect aspect marker necessary to derive
> > 'have got' from 'get'?
> Tense/aspect marking is optional in Tatari Faran. If you *really*
> wanted to draw a distinction, you could have _kuini kana ... dakat_
> for "I acquire a doll (now)" vs. _kuini nara ... dakat_ for "I have a
> doll (I acquired it in the past)".
Ah, I see. Although it's optional in many of my langs, too, I tend to
still miss it sometimes. :-) After some conlangs, I more and more
enter the track of less optional aspect markers, while tense is
totally neglected. Strange since my L1 does not draw a clear line
between these, has no synthetic aspect system, but the tense (mixed
with aspect) markers are mandatory. That's almost the opposite of
what I feel is the right way now.
What categories are mandatory in Tatari Faran? And which common ones
> > No, I don't have that. I would feel too limited in conlanging with
> > this constraint. :-)
> :-) For me, I feel that it would be too limiting if I had to resort to
> software to compose sentences for me, esp. if I hope to someday be
> able to converse in my conlang!
Maybe it's that programming is so much fun for me -- therefore, I mix
two fun things. :-)
> > Hehe. ;-) Even in Da Mätz se Basa, I make serious mistakes, although
> > it's very close to my L1. That's a language that has no Lisp
> > grammar yet...
> Heh. I like how you conlang by creating Lisp grammars. Does that mean
> you can do automatic translation between your conlangs? (That'd be
> awesome.) Perhaps the Universal Translator *is* possible after all...!
Oh, no, not at all. :-) The abstractions I type in Lisp are very
closely related with the corresponding language. E.g. I do have to
select the case, for instance. Only the gory details of syntax,
morphology, and sandhi are handled by the Lisp grammar. I don't
expect to solve the translation problem... :-)