Re: Basic lexicon

The Gray Wizard <dbell@...> wrote:
There certainly are a good number of possible lists to
choose from, the Swadesh Lists come to mind, but I would be wary of doing so.
One has to be careful not to merely provide one-for-one glosses for a list
of English words in order to avoid a relexification of English
semantics.  A very early attempt to do this for my conlang, amman iar, yielded
very poor results. What I opted for instead was to use a large number of good
language dictionaries that provided not just single word glosses, but
real definitions that exposed the semantic relationships realized
in each language.  When I needed a new word for any particular
concept, I would explore these semantic relationships and select/create new
ones for amman iar.  In this way the semantic net of amman iar became
unlike that of any natlang and in particular, unlike that of English.  This is
a far more time-consuming approach, but in the end yields far more
satisfactory results.
"""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""
i had the same approach as yours. the Ogden dictionary isn't
fit for my own conlang either. i don't think it makes much
sense to have a "pilot" entry when your conlang can derive
"pilot" from "to drive" or "to steer" and reversely "to make
good" doesn't make sense if your conlang has a "succeed"
entry. like you did, i made my lexicon through time. in my
first working year i had to spend half my time translating
legal stuff. i hated it but i listed most of the concepts i
came across and i realized that almost each jouyou kanji
conveys one very handy meaning that is hard to break down
really (well, that's my opinion, i guess other people would
disagree) like "suggest", "entice", "concede", "despise",
etc., but they lack other useful concepts like "contradict",
"intervene", etc. (which you need build from two basic
kanji). then i criss-crossed, inflated and culled this list
with the vocabulary i badly needed when learning other
foreign languages and my lexicon could build up within ten
years (it's about 1400 words too). but i believe this
approach is only fit for the specific grammar of one's own
conlang. for instance, someone whose conlang derives with
affixes, flexions or vocalic patterns, would not need the
entries "instrument", "craftsman", "clerk", "reservoir" or
"a building for economic activity" which someone making
compound words like chinese and indonesian would need
("reservoir energy" is "battery" in my lang). it all depends on
what you think is "basic".
my lexicon also has different entries for "basic" concepts like:
"to regret and wish it would still be so" vs. "to regret and
wish it had never happened",
"to understand (from explanation)" vs. "to understand
(through experience").
on the other hand, i have one single entry for both "to
teach" and "to learn" as well as for "happy" and "sad".
"""""""""""""""""""""""""""
Stay curious,
David
"""""""""""""""""""""""""""
we do, David, we do. :-)
Mathias
www.geocities.com/kalatunu/index.htm

Reply