Re: Natlang most similar to your conlang [WAS: Analyzing Ayeri's syntactic and voice alignment (long)]
|From:||Campbell Nilsen <cactus95@...>|
|Date:||Wednesday, April 2, 2008, 20:18|
"Define 'cynical'."-M. Mudd
----- Original Message ----
From: Michael Poxon <mike@...>
Sent: Thursday, April 3, 2008 3:57:01 AM
Subject: Re: Natlang most similar to your conlang [WAS: Analyzing Ayeri's syntactic and
voice alignment (long)]
The life sciences (I'm thinking especially of palaeontology here) use
cladistics as a way of organising the taxonomy. Possibly something along
those lines, but again it is at heart a "yes/no" system. Maybe we simply
shouldn't be building systems for the sake of system building? Mm.
----- Original Message -----
From: "Christopher Bates" <chrisdb@...>
> Are we talking about principles and parameters here? I'm dubious, since:
> 1. The list never seems to be complete. New parameters always seem to be
> required to deal with a new case found.
> 2. Many of the parameters seem to be an attempt to turn a situation
> without obvious hard boundaries into a set of binary options (This is why
> people in linguistic typology started talking about "clines", because they
> realised that simply yes/no for a list of features was not sufficient to
> describe a language's grammar, or the variation between languages).