On Tue, 27 Apr 2004 09:01:49 EDT, J Y S Czhang <czhang23@...> wrote:
> Ok, I (think) I have finalized the name and phonology and orthography
of
>my conlang _dzjunk lego_:
>
>= maeci legosetplex caca plus debri !
> prizerva. saalva. ricue. scopé-gomi plus riçyc'l ! =
>
>English translation of the above _dzjunk lego_, "junk language":
>"Fight {Maquis/-machy} Linguistic Waste & Trash!
> Save, Salvage, Recover, (creatively)Scavenge-Found-Objects & Recycle!"
>
>
> NOW onto finalizin' syntax/grammar...
> Since I might be usin' _dzjunk lego_ in "TransCultural" sci-fi stories
>and poetry, I am wondering what word-order is possibly the "easiest" to
parse:
>
> - I have heard that VSO is the most readibly parseable by both humans
and
>computers & that, according to my Russian polyglot-fiend - er, friend
Yuri,
>it can embody a "meta-subtext," an underlying sense, of the Time-Space
>Continuum (eh? ya gotta be kiddin'...)
My intuition would be to agree with that, modulo one's preexisting language
experience...
> - Same goes with SOV or "Reverse Polish Notation" according to others
>(including Wikipedia)
Um, I don't think both VSO and SOV can be most readable :) I'd be inclined
to prefer VSO because I think the verb is more important. Yeah, I'm biased.
> - Then there is the obvious advantages of SVO - not only just "lingual
>cultural" i.e. the Top 3 Langs of the World: Mandarin, English, Spanish:
> 'A language with a relatively strict SVO ordering does not require the
>use of inflections or marker words to distinguish subject from object. The
>listener or reader can begin to interpret a sentence before reaching its
end, which
>is not true of languages that have free word order, in which the recipient
>must wait for the entire sentence to arrive and then must mentally
unscramble
>the various elements before comprehension can begin. Some linguists feel
there
Free word order languages are spoken in scrambled order? Interesting...
>is a link between grammatical structures and the ease with which the brain
can
>interpret sentences. "The perceptual advantage of SVO languages is the
ready
>identification of subjects and objects, which are separated (by verbs) in
SVO
>but not SOV or VSO languages. It might also be mentioned that English
tends to
>have topics in sentence-initial position... Subject and topic will often
>coincide, a coincidence that apparently enhances processibility,
especially when
>the subject is also the semantic agent." ' {Edward Finegan in Comrie's
>_Languages of the World_}
English tends to have topics in sentence-initial position, but that is done
by munging the SVO syntax in ways which are confusing to a speaker of
another language. The passive voice is one example, and beginning a
sentence with a relative clause is another. Topicalization and fixed word
order are at odds with each other.
Any word order should work, though I disfavor SOV. What's more important is
making it clear where the two divisions are between subject, object, and
verb. If I say "Dogs still badger squirrels", for example, is the verb
"still" or "badger"? Well, I know "badger" is a noun, so it must be
"still".
----
"Everyone's different, except me." --Noktakanto