Invented (was and still is "lunatic")
|From:||Sally Caves <scaves@...>|
|Date:||Saturday, November 14, 1998, 21:28|
Just to pick up this thread for the (I hope) last time...
On Mon, 9 Nov 1998, Logical Language Group wrote:
in response to my exasperated:
> >poor encoding, unsophisticated conlanger... criminently, LB, I just hate
> >it when you introduce these damn value judgments. You know, natural
> >languages encode poorly. Like English!!!
> That's what I was saying. The English "invented" suggests completion, and
> there is no easy way in English to express the incompletive termination of
"being invented." "Under invention." or, the middle voice: "inventing"
(probably ungrammatical). An inventing language. A cooking turkey.
> I did not mean to phrase it so as to impugn any conlangers, but I can see
> by the way you extracted my text that it could be so taken. It was intended
> to be an example wherein a conlang that was more a code would have the same
> problem as English in lacking the distinction, thus showing what I have meant
> by "code". It is indeed a value judgement on my part that copying English
> semantics is, umm, inelegant. (Is there a word I can use that conveys my
> personal disapproval of such an idea while admitting that others might not
> have the same opinion or even the same standards and priorities? How is it
> possible to comment on someone's conlang, wherein they have made what appears
> to be an inelegant Anglicism, without bringing offense of the sort you seem
> to be expressing?
Well I guess the best way is not to comment... what I was trying to say in
my remark, Lojbab, which you've excerpted as well (I think I went on to
say that we are all "groping towards different goals"), is that many many
people give advice or offer suggestions on this listserv that don't
offend, that take the efforts of a new conlanger seriously, and assume
that he or she can learn by example, and so many of us do! A way to
express your displeasure is not to express it, to say instead: "you might
wish to consider this," or "you might look at what I do" (I've termed this
the AFMCL rejoinder--"as for my conlang.") Let the efficiencies and
beauties of Lojban speak for themselves. Don't assume that everybody
wants to make a conlang with its principles. And don't use disparaging
language--that is, if you REALLY want to interact with the artlangers and
their artlangs on this listserv, which I suspect you don't.
Speaking of which, sigh <GG>, you didn't comment on what I thought was the
substantive part of this posting--oh well, I'm used to that; it was very
much an ASMCL remark, in response to I think it was Hermann's comments,
but I think it went beyond the old "me too" to demonstrate how Teonaht's
system of invoking a kind-of-passive is just as ambiguous if not more so
than our English "invented." T's "subjected to inventing" could
conceivably have perfected or incomplete aspect:
galleyla tsobhadha(rem) doesn't perfectly square with
"invented language." It means a language subject to
inventing, literally "under inventing." But it doesn't
necessarily mean "in the process of being invented either,"
although I can see how someone might translate this as
"the language being invented."
Perpwe tsobkwecy(rem), "the under-cooked fish" (ha ha!),
meaning, the "cooked fish"; the
Whether or not this constitutes a weakness or a strength in Teonaht I am
still mulling over; whether or not the ambiguity should be ironed out is a
question that bears on this issue of "code" or "relex." Wanting to
disambiguate it might be doing damage to the peculiar logic of Teonaht,
and merely encoding on it English language concepts. Can I work with this
within its own structure that it's developing?
What I wouldn't want you to say is that it is "ambiguous" because I
haven't "thought it out properly," or "sophisticatedly" or "thoroughly"
I wouldn't mind suggestions from people who do what they usually do on
this list: comment or demonstrate without giving offense.
Lojban, I guess I have gottenm used to being blunt - we
> use the term "malglico" which means more or less "$%&^# English (like)" for
> Lojban usages that copy English semantics inappropriately.
You mean inappropriate to Lojban!
That's just my two bits... worth what you paid for it, which is nothing...
Li fetil'aiba, dam hoja-le uen.
volwin ly, vul inua aiba bronib.
This leaf, the wind takes her.
She's old, and born this year.