Re: Difficult language ideas

Leigh wrote:
<<
It is a status language of sorts and effectively a conlang itself, so
it isn't meant to be simple or naturalistic. It can change, but it
takes a concerted effort by the speakers because outside forces keep
it from changing otherwise.
 >>

Ah, now this could be fun.  ;)  What I would recommend is thinking
about the other natural languages in the area, and the people that
created this language.  It's one thing to be able to think from our
vantage point how a language could be unambiguous and complicated,
but quite another to think about how speakers of the natural
languages in the area you're thinking of would think to construct
an unambiguous language.  For example, you could do something
like...

mata-s "I fell accidentally."
mata-x "I fell on purpose."
mata-z "I fell because of 3rd person argument."
mata-G "I fell because of 2nd person argument."

etc.

But maybe the people that created this language think of
unambiguity in different terms, e.g....

"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."

Hee, hee, hee...

Some other "difficult to learn" ideas:

-Reuse the same morphology in different places.  For example...

kela-n "I ate many years ago."
kela-N "I ate on purpose."
kela-N\ "I was told to eat by someone below my station."

(The complete paradigms for each of those three will look, of
course, radically different than the one above for /mata/.)

-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).

-With respect to Suffixaufnahme, make everything agree with
everything (and there actually *is* a natural language that does
something like this):

"The man gave the woman a flower." =

Man-NOM.-DAT.-ACC. give-3sbj.-3d.obj.-3i.obj.-PAST
woman-DAT.-NOM.-ACC. flower-ACC.-NOM.-DAT.

-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)."

-Two words: Systematic Suppletion:

/oski/ "bear"
Case: Sg./Dual/Plu.
NOM: oski/oskis/oskiz
ACC: oski:/oski:s/oski:z
DAT: oskij/oskijs/oskijz
GEN: oskji/oskjis/oskjiz
LOC: oskjij/oskjijs/oskjijz
ALL: oski:j/mistolo/oski:jz
ABL: oskji:/oskji:s/oskji:z
VOC: oskji:j/oskji:js/oskji:jz

/eski/ "monk"
Case: Sg./Dual/Plu.
NOM: eski/eskis/eskiz
ACC: eski:/eski:s/eski:z
DAT: eskij/eskijs/eskijz
GEN: eskji/eskjis/eskjiz
LOC: eskjij/eskjijs/eskjijz
ALL: eski:j/astondeli/eski:jz
ABL: eskji:/eskji:s/eskji:z
VOC: eskji:j/eskji:js/eskji:jz

The relevant paradigm slot is the allative dual.

------------------------------------------------------------------------
----------

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.

-David
*******************************************************************
"sunly eleSkarez ygralleryf ydZZixelje je ox2mejze."
"No eternal reward will forgive us now for wasting the dawn."

-Jim Morrison

http://dedalvs.free.fr/

Replies