Re: Tiny lexicon languages

Jim Grossmann wrote:
>
> Hello,
>
> IMO, 20 roots is too few for a language meant to be used for everyday
> communication or diary writing.
>
> Even if 20 roots and lots of derivation could do the same work as a large
> natlang lexicon, the resulting words would be too similar to one another
> more often.   Which sentence seems easier to read, A or B?
>
> A:   I took a picture with my new camera, and developed the film to produce
> a good print.
>
> B:    I photographed a photograph with my new prephotographizer and
> photographized the photographier to produce a fine photographrand.
>
> I'll take the first sentence any day of the week!
Jim, I think the tiny lexicon would work for very tiny societies,
like birds.  I think it would be ideal for sparrows.  Eat, sleep,
mate, eggs, chicks, fly, perch, feathers, danger, rival, fight, hurt,
dustbath, deadbird.  That's only thirteen, and that pretty much
covers it.
>
> As for aUI, the language of space, I used to own a grammar for it.   I use
> that term loosely;   the claims its author made on behalf of aUI were mostly
> laughable.   It does NOT produce precise expressions from its handful of
> roots.
>
> A language with a tiny lexicon would have to be used for some specialized
> purpose;   magical ritual, playing chess, describing feelings;   any
> endeavor involving only a handful of entities and actions to name.
>
> MATHEMATICS might provide a good semantic domain for a tiny lexicon
> language.
>
> And I would LOVE to see if someone could make a tiny lexicon language
> specialized to describe dancing.
>
> But for the present, I'll pass on this challenge, and wait for better minds
> to take it up.
>
> Jim