Re: Can realism be retro-fitted?

Herman Miller wrote:
>Alex Fink wrote:
> > On Sun, 14 Jan 2007 20:00:03 -0600, Herman Miller <hmiller@...> wrote:
> >> In the long run, is it better to start with one or more artificial
> >> proto-languages and develop them forward through time (which involves a
> >> lot of work on features that may not even make it into the future
> >> language system), or to start with an existing language and develop a
> >> history for it?
> > > Well, 'better' is, as usual, not really applicable except with respect
>to a
> > particular explicit set of goals.  But it's easier to get a solid
>diachrony
> > working forward than backward, the more so if you're resistant to
>changing
> > the daughter language.
>
>Well, if you're working forward, you know by definition that your later
>forms have a history that makes sense. Working backward is more like
>putting together a puzzle, except that you don't know if all the pieces are
>even from the same puzzle.
There's a third choice too, sort of. I've found it useful to start at least
sketching history alreddy in the erly phases of a project; there's the risk
of getting sidetracked, but even a little preliminary work can prevent
having to do major retcons. I still primarily work backwards, however, since
1) I like puzzles, and 2) I usually have a specific kind of sound in mind
for the present day language, and it's easier to achieve it that way. So I'm
not really starting from a proto-language, but not really adding history to
an existing language either.

I'm afraid this'll be of little use in solving your current problems,
however.

John Vertical

_________________________________________________________________
Nyt löydät etsimäsi tiedot nopeasti niin koneeltasi kuin netistä.
http://toolbar.msn.fi

Reply