--- Andrew Nowicki <andrew@...> wrote:
> Sally Caves wrote:
> Very interesting post! I agree that a rigid
> taxonomical language does not make sense.
Then why try to foist one on an unsuspecting
world? Every post you've made about your auxlang
has implied if not outright spelled out a
taxonomical language. Look at the words you've
given and their "translations". Every single one
is an exercise in sorting and taxonomy.
> Of all the languages that
> I know Ygyde is the most promising because it
OK. You've invoked Throckmorton's Law three times
now. That's QUITE ENOUGH, thank you!
> vegetable = obiby = "noun anatomical part of a
> multicellular plant food"
> carrot = odibiby = "noun long anatomical...
> food"
> cauliflower = ocibiby = "noun sexual
> anatomical... food"
> corn = otybiby = "noun high anatomical... food"
> garlic = olubiby = "noun smelly anatomical...
> food"
> lettuce = okubiby = "noun lightweight
> anatomical... food"
> onion = ojibiby = "noun optical anatomical...
> food"
> parsley = olibiby = "noun medical anatomical...
> food"
> potato = opebiby = "noun warm anatomical...
> food"
OK. So you replace Sally's ellilli ellillo
ellilla ellillylally by ollibby ollibbo ollibbu
ollibbinabbyo.
> Ygyde's grammar does not say that names of
> vegetables must sound similar,
It's very structure demands that outcome even so.
> > > When you learn a new language, you do not
> > > walk around with dictionaries,
>
> > Sure you do.
> I did not use dictionaries when I was learning
> my mother tongue.
Note that you specified "new langauge" not
"mother language".
> > But this system can only go so far. Let
> > anyone stray
> > from it by introducing a new word, or let
> > it evolve
> > as all languages do, and it will start
> > developing idiosyncracies and
> > irregularities and
> > eventually maggelities.
> > <G> Unless you try to "fix" it-- Jonathan
> > Swift's mistake.
>
> Ygyde's grammar imposes some standards that
> cannot
> be abolished. If Ygyde becomes a mother tongue,
> idiosyncrasies are most likely in the names of
> flora, fauna, food, and dress.
You don't get it, do you? Language doesn't work
that way. Idiosyncrasies pop up _everywhere_ in a
language.
> Basic ideas and
> technical names have no reason to drift into
> idiosyncrasies.
Sure they do. They do it all the time. You come
across as a person who, while an eager conlanger,
is not that familiar with the realities you're
dealing with.
Television becomes tele or teevee. Cat becomes
pussy. #11 scalpel becomes knife.
> If two different kinds of food
> are
> called "container food," we can distinguish
> them as
> "american container food" and "spanish
> container food."
Funny that neither container food thus far
mentioned are either "American" or "Spanish".
> Or we can guess the meaning from the context.
> Television,
> Internet, fast food chains, and globalization
> may prevent idiosyncrasies.
Nah. They just create more space for
idiosyncrasies to happen in and more people to
make them.
Padraic.
=====
ay aci kes? ao o may mech? si ay 'ci kes, feri kes;
si nay ne kes mech, feri que láes!
.