OT: Random word generators (was Re: Worthwhile Engelang Goal)
|From:||Jörg Rhiemeier <joerg_rhiemeier@...>|
|Date:||Tuesday, June 7, 2005, 15:17|
On Tue, 7 Jun 2005 00:48:26 -0700,
"David J. Peterson" <dedalvs@...> wrote:
> Henrik wrote:
> I should've only used the random generator. :-)
> The problem was that when I did that to decide the words for
> 'man' and 'woman'
> (I chose them by random in that order) the two results were
> 'il' and 'la'.
> No-one would've believed they were randomised, so I started
> constructing bias-free words...
> Ha! That's a hoot! My problem with random word generators
> is that if I try to be strict about it (I tell myself, "Okay, no matter
> *what* the next form is, it's going to be the word for "water"),
> the results are always less than desirable. I think I remember I
> tried this with "water" for Gweydr, and I came up with something
> That's a possible Gweydr word, but I just *hate* it! And until
> someone's life depends on my lexical choices, I'm not willing to
> let such a word into my language--at least not for "water".
I have similar reservations against random word generators, though
I never used any. I feel that they are to conlanging what rhythm
machines are to music.