Re: Concept_sitting

Le 14 janv. 09 à 21:34, Amanda Babcock Furrow a écrit :

> On Wed, Jan 14, 2009 at 08:23:22PM +0000, R A Brown wrote:
>
>> David J. Peterson wrote:
>>> The task you're doing can be done to any concept pretty much
>>> however you see fit.  If "rain" is "sky + water", perhaps "sky" is
>>> "up + air".
>>
>> True - the splitting could in fact go on ad_infinitum. We could
>> certainly split 'air' and, I guess, if one wanted to, it wouldn't
>> be too
>> difficult to split 'up'. 'water', of course, can be readily split.
>
> One might wish to make a language in which every concept is
> expressed as
> a combination of semantic primes - but primes which are no longer
> meaningful in isolation!  So "rain" would be the archaic words for
> "sky"
> and "water", but "sky" would instead be the archaic words for "up" and
> "air"... etc.
You hardly split air, you could only if you speak on a particule
point of view.
But you easily split computer as the chinese "electric brain" does
obvously there are things you can split and things not....
i agree with you if you say there's a hard word to choose them.
>
> Obviously if done without exception, this would be rather
> artificial, and
> kind of reminiscent of that Star Trek language with "Shaka, when
> the walls
> fell" or somesuch.  Probably a few of the old words should remain
> usable
> in isolation.
>
> (This also reminds me a bit of the use of Chinese characters!  Once
> (almost)
> all words in themselves, now they are often paired to make words.
> IIRC
> this was because of falling-together due to the erosion that
> brought tones
> to the language.  Maybe erosion could drive your language into
> oligosynthesis?)
>
> Also, one nice touch would be to have a few remaining uses of the
> archaic
> words in frozen formulas.
>
> This is beginning to sound like fun!
>
> tylakèhlpë'fö,
> Amanda

Reply