Re: The Language Code, take 2 (or 3)

Dirk:
> > Maybe also a parameter for associated culture, real or fictional?
>
> I dunno. The associated culture is, strictly speaking, extralinguistic
> However, there is a Writing section, which could also be argued to be
> extralinguistic. Right now I'm inclined not to include it
OTOH as an ingredient of a *conlang* code it strikes me as very important
in characterizing the conlang. But as you see this as a language code, I
take your point.

> >> M       morphology
> >>         a       agglutinating (+/-)
> >>         i       isolating (+/-)
> >>         f       inflecting (+/-)
> >>         h       head-marking (+/-)
> >>         d       dependent-marking (+/-)
> >>         t#      number of distinct tenses
> >>         a#      number of distinct aspects
> >>         m#      number of distinct moods
> >>         t/a#    number of distinct tense/aspect combinations (where a
> >>                 meaningful distinction between tense and aspect
> >> cannot be
> >>                 made) (also t/m, a/m, etc)
> >>         c#      number of distinct cases
> >>         g#      number of genders or noun classes
> >>         n#      number of number distinctions
> >
> > Does this mean (i) number of X in the grammar, (ii) number of X encoded
> > morphologically, or (iii) number of X encoded inflectionally? Since
> > it's
> > in the Morphology section it must mean (ii) or (iii), but (iii) would
> > make sense only for Mf+. So maybe (ii) is meant; but that's much less
> > interesting
>
> I did intend (ii). However, the number marking parameter is (i) (a
> decision which was arrived at during a brief discussion that Rob Nierse
> and I had), so for the sake of consistency, all of the Morphology
> categories should likewise be (i)
What if these (t, a, m, etc.) are lexicalized? E.g. "maybe" as opposed to
"irrealis". Or "a few" as opposed to "paucal". I guess the features have
to be grammaticalized somehow, as opposed to lexicalized, in order to
warrant inclusion. So a conlang with 38 adpositions would not count as
having 38 cases, say.

> > For syntax, I urge a parameter for head-First/head-Last, e.g. English
> > would
> > be Sf++, Livagain Sf+++++
>
> As a replacement for the b(s,v,o) parameter, or in addition to it? I
> would prefer it as a replacement, but basic word order is one of the
> classic typological parameters and is immediately recognizable
I would prefer it as a replacement too, but I think many people are fond
of the SVO parameter.

> >> English: Tn Pt*p++24,9(c)v(c) Wntar-- Mi++f+dt2a3c2n2 Sbsvoargn
> >> Lc++d+1000000+
> >
> > Why "(c)v(c)"? That's an unusual characterization of the English
> > syllable
> > Or does c and v mean "one or more Cs/Vs"? I guess it must
>
> That's what I intended for the English example; in that case, the c's
> really encode onsets and codas rather than individual consonants. But
> the Shoshoni and Tepa examples encode numbers of segments, and the coda
> consonants of Shoshoni can only be homorganic with a following onset. I
> can't think of any good way to encode this kind of syllable structure
> information without making the Code unwieldy. Any suggestions?
Break it down into what you (qua phonology wonk) consider to be the key
parameters?

I also suggest letting people apply the code to their conlangs
experimentally
(beta test) before you finalize it.

--And.
--And.