Re: Difficult language ideas

On 9/19/06, David J. Peterson <dedalvs@...> wrote:

> "When it comes to falling, there are but three possibilities:
> one may fall on purpose; one may fall by accident; or one may
> fall because one was looking at a priceless painting and did not
> notice a third party that was nearby, waiting to trip them."
> -Philosopher X, creator of language Y
>
> This would produce an "unambiguous" set of three suffixes:
>
> mata-n "I fell on purpose."
> mata-N "I fell on accident."
> mata-N\ "I fell because I was looking at a priceless painting and
> did not notice someone nearby that was waiting to trip me."
Ha, I have to make up some ancient philosopher now...

> -Use varied word order to reflect anything.  Some examples:
>
> (1) For verbs of motion, the six word orders reflect whether
> the motion is north, south, east, west, undirected, or circular.
>
> (2) For verbs of experience, the six word orders reflect the
> attitude of the speaker towards his parents.
>
> (3) For transitive verbs, the six word orders reflect the intensity
> of the action (these should not match up with (2) in any way).
I had some general ideas about word order and it's one feature I think
I'll have to include. Your first example gives me some ideas. It would
fit with their mindset, as well.

(snip)
> -To have fun with varying word orders, make it so that the
> absence of a case tag indicates that the noun is indefinite:
>
> Ordinary = kolu-r mena-4 ita-N\ /man-DAT. woman-ACC. see-PAST./
> "The man saw the woman."
>
> Indefinite: kolu mena ita-N\ /man-INDEF. woman-INDEF. see-PAST./
> "A man saw a woman (and the speaker respects and reveres his parents)."
> or
> "A woman saw a man (and the speaker despises his parents)."
ROFL. Naturally, you have to know the speaker's relationship to his
parents to decipher his meaning.

> -Two words: Systematic Suppletion:
(snip)
> The relevant paradigm slot is the allative dual.
Or better yet, have different ones vary with each noun.

> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> Oh, man, I have way too many ideas...  I've always been entertained
> by the idea of the most complicated language imaginable, and
> have been coming up with ideas for years.
Picking and choosing will be the hardest part :)


On 9/19/06, H. S. Teoh <hsteoh@...> wrote:
> On Tue, Sep 19, 2006 at 05:32:04PM -0400, Leigh Richards wrote:
>
> > Hmm. That gives me an idea. It isn't a language likely to develop many
> > idioms, but it could very well have taken idioms from various
> > languages throughout the years and turned them to its own purposes. I
> > like that.
>
> OK. But based on what you wrote, it seems that the speakers of your
> language are out to deliberately obfuscate their speech (or at least
> raise the barrier to learning as much as they can). I think the idioms
> idea is still applicable: they can take advantage of experiences or
> knowledge privy to the "in-crowd", even if they don't have a rich
> cultural heritage as such---e.g., if they are being persecuted, there
> may be stories or rumors passed between them, with a mutual
> understanding on the "actual" significance of the events (as interpreted
> by one of their own), such that instead of describing something
> explicitly, they refer to said events in some way that seems meaningless
> or even completely the opposite to the outsider.
My reasoning there was that it isn't a language often used for
chatting, but more for formal purposes. But you're right, there would
be some insider knowledge which would influence the language. I'm
beginning to think I will need two 'registers' as well, for formal
speech vs ordinary talking. I'm not sure about that yet.

> [...]
> > >What are some of the ideas you have? It'll be fun to discuss them.
> >
> > I'm still in the brainstorming phase, and my ideas have been pretty
> > general so far.
> >
> > As far as phonology, there will be sounds unused and/or non-phonemic
> > in the normal languages, maybe some complex rules for sandhi, possibly
> > overlapping to an extent. I haven't thought it out, but there's
> > something about Aymara's vowel elision that wants me to work it in in
> > a non-intuitive way.
>
> Complex sandhi can significantly obfuscate a language to non-native
> speakers. Even better if the result of the sandhi looks superficially
> the same as another completely unrelated utterance. E.g., off the top of
> my head, ze + bafa + vor -> zi bofa mor, but 'zi', 'bofa', and 'mor' are
> themselves actual words with meanings completely unrelated to the first
> phrase (when they are intended, the sandhi turns them into something
> else, like 'ze mofa bor').
Speaking of sandhi, I have natlang examples, but what are some
conlangs with complex sandhi?

(snip)
> Context is a powerful tool for obfuscation, when used correctly. :-) The
> use of idioms and such can be understood as the sharing of a large
> amount of static context. Additional obfuscation can come about by also
> taking advantage of dynamic context. Yet another example off the top of
> my head: say there are two adjectives, mara and tyona, that mean exactly
> the same thing, except that mara implies a congenial tone and tyona
> implies a hostile tone, and this implication causes another word in
> subsequent conversation, say huftan, to mean opposite things.
That's interesting. I like that idea too.

Reply