Re: more Maggel banter (wasRe: Conlang Typology Survey)

En réponse à J Y S Czhang :


>     ROTFLMAO. I wonder if any NatLangs have ever had that distinction. I
>would not be the least surprised if ancient Cantonese did ::BiG TooTHY
>GRiNNie::
LOL. Well, as for food, the Maggel speakers are worse than the Cantonese :))) .

As for the edible/inedible distinction, I remember reading somewhere a
while ago that some languages with noun classes had this distinction. But I
don't think it applied to human beings :)) .

>     ... and perhaps the least-civilized, most-despised "Chinese tribe", the
>Nung [who now live in-&-control the Opium Triangle (Laos,Thailand, Burma)] ,
>just may have had such distinction as recently as 2 centuries ago (or mayhaps
>even less).
Hehe, the funny part with the distinction in Maggel is that sometimes it is
to be taken litterally, but often it's more a laudative/pejorative
distinction, but whether edible is pejorative or laudative is extremely
context-dependent (it can be pejorative as in "Be careful, I can eat you",
or laudative as the mother to her child "You're so cute I could eat you!!!"
- and this one I've heard quite often ;))) -). Same with inedible
(pejorative as in "you're so evil your meat must be poisonous!!", laudative
as in "you're my friend and I'll never think of you as food"). And some
connections may seem rather strange to us :)) .

Christophe Grandsire.

http://rainbow.conlang.free.fr

You need a straight mind to invent a twisted conlang.