Re: OT: Good Books?

On Fri, 05 Mar 2004 07:14:49 -0600, J. K. Hoffman <ryumaou@...>
wrote:

> While I've heard the _Morphosyntax_ book recommended before, frankly,
> just the *name* intimidates me still.  And, I think I've heard
> *Language Universals and Linguistic Typology* recommended before, too.
> But, something that's more, er, populist, is probably better for a
> conlang noob like me.
Let me state this in no uncertain terms:

There are two books that will take you from knowing no linguistic
terminology up to the point of knowing about as much as the median in this
group (if I may make so bold as to guess that level (while ignoring the
many and varied specialisations of the membership)). They are Payne's
_Describing Morphosyntax_ and Comrie's _Language Universals and Linguistic
Typology_

As long as you read them cover to cover, rather than trying to dive right
into the juicy bits, they assume no foreknowledge (at least none that 2
minutes with Google can't give you on an as-needed basis), and provide
complete and thorough treatments of almost everything a Conlanger needs to
know.

Seriously. If you're only going to buy two books, buy those two. I also
added Trask's _Dictionary Of Grammatical Terms In Linguistics_, which I
would call "optional" rather than required, especially if you have no
problems with the WWW.

My other advice? Stay with descriptive rather than prescriptive writers.
Lakoff, Worff, Wierzbicka and the rest of them are great for providing
ideas to play with, but I'd strongly advise a good solid grounding in the
"known knowns" and "known unknowns" *before* heading off into the "unknown
unknowns". Walk before you run.






Paul

Reply