Re: does conlanging change your sense of reality?

The development of Itlani was quite similar.  In fact the more passive  I got
the quicker the language came to me.  I am much happier with the  results now
than when I was trying to force things.

Tsiasuk


In a message dated 4/2/2009 12:29:08 P.M. Eastern Daylight Time,
danny.c.bowman@GMAIL.COM writes:

I was  intrigued by some of the earlier discussion about verbal and
pre-verbal  (sub-verbal?) thought.  I've found that when I'm actively
creating my  conlang Angosey, there seems to be more than just superficial,
verbalized  reasoning going on.  For example, changes in my grammar rarely
happen  due to foresight.  In other words, the grammer changes "on its  own"
and I'm left scrambling around trying to figure out how it  happened.  The
emotive aspect suffix is the best example I have: it  just appeared out of
nowhere, and I have had to figure out how it works and  why it does what it
does after the fact.  It's like I have to study my  own language sometimes.

Just out of curiousity, has that happened to  anyone else?

For me, the process of language creation is not to test a  particular
philisophical idea or alternate history.  It just comes to  me, and I write
it down.  It has a certain life of its own.   Ironically, it backs up the
argument that we do a lot of our thinking  subverbally, else otherwise how
could ideas come to us without us  "thinking" of them beforehand?

On Thu, Apr 2, 2009 at 11:53 AM, Paul  Schleitwiler, FCM <
pjschleitwilerfcm@...> wrote:

>  Two things.
> One is that I am not verbal from the time I awaken until  about half the
> day.
> But I am visual and thinking and can  remember 'about' what I was thinking
> when I switch over to verbal.  Before I go to sleep, I am primarily verbal.
> I
> do my best  visual art in the mornings and my best writing and speaking in
> the  evenings. Part of the time I am both and otherwise, asleep.
> Every day,  all my life.
>
> The second is that the argument about whether one  can express a thought
> only
> or better in one language over  another and the notion that language shapes
> our thinking only consider  linear, denotative forms. Poetry shows that
> language is holistic.  Meaning in poetry is connotative, which is why it is
> so difficult to  translate poetry. While I am verbal, I am simultaneously
> visual (note  the body language here) as well as all the other senses (e.g.
> body  language is also kinesthetic).
>
> The non-holistic description of  language is, IMO, the result of considering
> written language as the  true form and ignoring how it is used in real life.
>
> I agree  with earlier posts that it is easier to think some things in one
>  language versus another (try math for instance), that any language can
>  express any thought (but not as easily) and that there is value in  this
> diversity.
>
> I think that language does shape our  thinking (most of us are lazy
> thinkers)
> but we also shape  language by what we are interested in communicating.
> Think
> of  all the linguistic terms and ways of thinking about language that have
>  been invented and that have shaped our thinking about language at the  same
> time.
>
> Kinship terms are another example. In  German, I am related to more people
> than I am in English and those are  two closely related languages. (To J.
> Burke: How do speakers of  Central Mountain languages speak and think of
>  kinship?)
>
> Living languages do not have a one to one denotative  meaning for
> utterances.
> I think a good conlang should be more  than that also.
> What do you think?
> God bless you all always,  all ways,
>  Paul
>

**************Worried about job security? Check out the 5 safest jobs in a
recession.
(http://jobs.aol.com/gallery/growing-job-industries?ncid=emlcntuscare00000003)