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

On Friday, June 13, 2003, at 12:07  PM, John Cowan wrote:

> Dirk Elzinga scripsit:
>
>> I'm asserting that such a language does not exist; all languages will
>> cluster at one end or the other. That being the case, the continuum
>> really isn't one, and the dichotomy between constructed and
>> natural/ethnic is a real one.
>
> I think that weird written concoctions like Nissaya Burmese (Burmese
> morphemes, Pali syntax) and Iberian Notarial Latin (aka Leonese Vulgar
> Latin, with Latin morphology and syntax but with spelling reflecting
> Old Ibero-Romance) arguably occupy the middle ground.
Okay, and Andreas' suggestion of reconstructed languages might fit in
there as well. So how could they be accomodated in the current scheme
(i.e., the one which makes the division between natural languages on
the one hand, and constructed languages on the other)? And how would
BP's category help? Would they then be "n" (natural) languages with
c++? or "c" (constructed) languages with n++ (for naturalistic)?

I'll post the current version of the Code before I leave the office
today and let you all try it out over the weekend on your own
languages. It might be nice to collect the examples somewhere ...

Dirk
--
Dirk Elzinga
Dirk_Elzinga@byu.edu

"I believe that phonology is superior to music. It is more variable and
its pecuniary possibilities are far greater." - Erik Satie

Reply