Re: Twisted Worldview Colangs?

In a message dated 12/7/2003 3:46:57 PM Eastern Standard Time,
ThatBlueCat@AOL.COM writes:


>I thought of something a couple days ago, so I wanted to ask.  Has anyone
created or heard of a conlang that was >meant to represent a twisted worldview?

I don't think I've risen to the level of "twisted," but I have sketched a
couple of ideas that are perhaps a bit peculiar.

1.  I thought of devising a language in which it is ungrammatical to make any
statement of fact without specifying who is responsible for that state of
affairs.  E.g., if you said "I was late," you'd have a choice:  (A) you could put
the "responsibility" suffix on "I" and that would mean "I was late and it was
my own fault" or  (B) If you didn't want to take the blame, you'd have to add
another NP and put the responsibility suffix on it, to say in effect "I was
late (and it was my wife's fault)" or "I was late (and impersonal natural
forces are to blame (e.g., it snowed))."  You _could_ say "I was late (and I
decline to specify who or what might be responsible)," but then you'd have to do
that explicitly; you couldn't just leave it out as in English (or any normal
language).  Some word or other has to bear the responsibility suffix.

This get a bit trickier with statements of emotional states.  If you want to
say "I love you" probably the thing to do is put the responsibility suffix on
"you" so as to say "I love you (and you're responsible for that, because
you're just a lovable wonderful person)."  It would seem obnoxious to put the
suffix on "I" and thereby say "I love you (and I'm responsible, because I'm just
such a loving person)."  On the other hand, if you wanted to say "God loves us,"
it would probably be best to put the responsibility suffix on "God" rather
than on "us."

The idea was that the language would make the world a better place by making
it harder for people to dodge responsibility, but my sister suggested it was
more likely to lead to a society of people who sat around blaming each other
for everything.  She's probably right.

2. Another thought was inspired by a Dilbert cartoon, in which Dilbert's
girlfriend told him her problems (in an attempt to elicit sympathy) and he
mistakenly assumed she was looking for practical solutions, so he wrote out an action
plan she could follow to fix every problem she had mentioned.  She was not
pleased.  Therefore, I sketched a proposal for a language in which nearly every
sentence would start with one or more "relevance particles" that indicated
_why_ the speaker was saying the sentence.  Dilbert's girlfriend would have used
the "seeking sympathy" particle, not the "seeking practical advice" particle,
and the misunderstanding would have been averted.

Similarly, if you asked a question, you'd have a choice of particles
indicating (1) you don't know the answer and you hope the hearer can supply it [i.e.,
it's a straightforward question], or (2) you don't really care about the
answer; you're just making small talk, or (3) you already know the answer and
you're testing the hearer's knowledge or (4) you're just showing off the fact that
you're smart enough to ask such a clever question, etc.

I eventually came up with a list of about 70 relevance particles.  (But I'm
not sure where it is now.)

Doug