Re: NON-spoken, NON-written, NON-human conlang.

I said: (wrote:??) "Giving the impression of a vastly
compacted way of communicating at least serves as its
own analogy for describing what you propose. Whether
people learn to incoprorate and understand any devised
complex rules for this compaction is... well, time
will tell."

As I just sent this, "incorporate and understand any
devised complex rules for this compaction" kind of
reminded me of Ebonics, (which as everyone knows is
the English of the future...) Or maybe Navajo; Simply
devise an inflection schema for every word used in
Navajo, substitute English, break these down further
until every sentence can be replaced with a single
monosyllabic word. :)

SC

> --- "Mark P. Line" <mark@...> wrote:
> > So does this mean there really is something we
> might
> > call sequential order
> > in the language, just not at the level you've
> > equated with word order?
> >
> >
> > -- Mark
> >
>
> My idea was that the language could _talk about_
> sequential order as a concept, but not actualy _use_
> sequential ordering as part of the language.
>
> These beings could visit a dimension where time
> existed, but could also communicate among themselves
> in their native non-tmeporal realm.  With nine
> dimensions to choose from "sentences" could be
> separated along some other dimension than time,
> which
> might serve as an analog to sequential order.
>
> It's hard to talk about trans-temporal beings
> without
> letting human words like "before" and "after" creep
> in, which seem to imply temporal ordering.  But I
> suppose, for the sake of human discussion, we scould
> just pretend that certain clusters were communicated
> "before" others, rather than simultaneous but "off
> to
> one side in the 6th dimension" which might be more
> correct.
>
> --gary
>


		
__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Mail Address AutoComplete - You start. We finish.
http://promotions.yahoo.com/new_mail