Re: Tlvn, Uqbar, Orbis Tertius

On Tue, 14 Sep 1999, From Http://Members.Aol.Com/Lassailly/Tunuframe.Html wrote:

> why not ?
> single blondjes awaited ?
>
We have a few in stock, yes, but they will not be available for masculine
attention for the next twelve years, useless to insist ;-). The eldes has
just leart to ride a bicycle, and the youngest two still say 'af de stoel',
instead of 'van de stoel af'...

>
> fairy tale !
> so quite to the contrary - but doubtlessly so if you keep contending it.
>
I won't dream of contending! On the other hand, aren't fairy tales supposed
to be full of the received wisdom of the ancients?

> BTW i checked your vocablist. not bad indeed. conlangers who want
> to make their own vocablist should plunder it.
Why, thank you! One thing I noticed when translating the glosses from
Dutch to English (apart from the fact that while I can write English
without taking recourse to a dictionary, but can't translate a hundred
single words without needing one), that Denden lexemes don't really
occupy the same semantic space that either English or Dutch lexemes
do... I fear that some of the glosses look like they've been lifted out
of Roget's verbatim!

(I've quite forgotten what exactly this thread was about, but
tangentially to other posts: anyone who wants to neatly divide syntax
and semantics into two separate water-tight compartments might take a
look at Wierzbicka's _The Semantics of Grammar_. If there's a grammatical
distinction in a language, it will in all probability exist to encode a
meaning, is her contention, and the different grammatical distinctions
are not divided equally in different languages. She's Polish/Australian,
by the way.)

Boudewijn Rempt  | http://denden.conlang.org/~bsarempt