Re: On the design of an ideal language

On Sun, 07 May 2006 12:56:40 -0400, And Rosta <and.rosta@...> wrote:

> I have just remembered also the conlang Lin, designed for maximal
> concision, which uses a similar idea: words are monosemous within a
> semantic field but polysemous across semantic fields -- 'polymonosemy',
> one might call it. There are particles or similar devices that switch
> the text between semantic fields. A word has the sense corresponding to
> the currently switched-on semantic field. (That, at least, is my
> understanding of Lin's scheme.)
I remember seeing some other conlang back in the dim and distant early
days of my online conlanging life that described itself as a "quantum
language", where there was one "monosemization" particle per sentence, and
it always occured sentence-finally.

Seemed like a very bad implementation of an only moderately good idea, at
the time. The way Lin works has made me reconsider how good of an idea it
might actually be.

Very interesting.





Paul