Re: Gevey and Greenberg's Word Order Universals
|From:||Jonathan Chang <zhang2323@...>|
|Date:||Sunday, September 17, 2000, 20:57|
In a message dated 2000:09:17 4:20:09 AM, rikroots@ENTERPRISE.NET writes:
>How relevant are universals to conlangs, or to natlangs? It seems to
>me that languages are essentially chaotic, with complexity generated
>from a few basic rules underlying each language. But I see no reason
>for all languages to share universals that govern the choice of how
>their basic rules will operate. Just my opinion, of course.
Yep, it seems that even "simple" basic linguistic rules (i.e. pidgin and
creole types, even some agglutinizing languages) generate ever increasing
complexity with useage.
I find that highly attractive aesthetically: that from great simplicity
arises unforeseen complexity/ies. It is very much a Taoist-like idea/ideal.
The act of conlanging is definitely an exercise in generating complexity
"No theory can exclude everything that is wrong, poor, or even
detestable, or include everything that is right, good, or beautiful."
-- Arnold Schoenberg