Re: NonVerbal Conlang?

Sally Caves wrote:
> Everybody:
>
> Is the proper term for "oral" in signing "verbal"?  A *verbal* language
> as opposed to one signed by the hands?
I don't know; but it does seem to me not a good thing to add to yet
another meaning to a word whose meaning is already overloaded -
especially when the perfectly good word "oral" exists.

"Verbal" already has the long-established meanings:
1. "of , pertaining to, or derived from verbs". (The last meaning IMO is
better conveyed by 'deverbal' - there is an important difference between
a 'verbal adjective' and a 'deverbal adjective' for example).
2."in, of the manner of, concerning _words_" (<-- Latin _uerbum_ = 'word').

When I saw the subject line 'NonVerbal Conlang', like Sally, I thought
it referred to a verbless Conlang; however, reading the mail that began
the thread, I realized it did not mean that, so I assumed it meant 'a
wordless Conlang', which sounded sort of interesting.

But as the thread developed, I became confused. (In any case, what do we
mean by 'word'?)

> I suppose the shift in meaning from "word" to "articulated sound" has
> come along gradually; something that isn't "verbalized" can be indicated
> by other means (a gesture, a look, a behavior)--
The only two meanings of the verb "verbalize" given in my dictionary are:
1. to turn into a verb.
2. to put into words.

> an early suggestion that
> such communication was thought to have no "words" in the traditional
> sense.
Yes, I think that is right. The assumption was that signed languages &
similar forms of communication did not have 'words', so someone
interpreting signed communication for a person who did not understand it
would 'verbalize' the communication by putting it into words orally.

> But since there are so many "verbless" languages spoken of on
> CONLANG, I was confused.  I think "non-oral" would have been more
> enlightening.
I agree, if this is what is meant. You were not the only one confused,
tho my confusion was (and is) different.

> Certainly there are "words" in non-oral or non-verbal languages?
Certainly there are.

Can I stress that I am *NOT* intending to flame or to be argumentative
for argument's sake. I am genuinely confused & am seeking clarification.
Was the intended topic of this thread:

(a)non-oral conlangs?
That would include, for example, the language used in Jack Vance's "The
Gift of the Gab" for communication between dekabrachs and humans. I
guess there must be lot of such languages. But such languages are simply
substituting some other method of signally for oral articulation. It is
analogous to communicating using Morse code or semaphore.Any language
where the symbols, gestures or whatever occur sequentially (or linearly)
_can_ be oralized.

(b) conlangs that _cannot be oralized_?
That is a _fully_ two-dimensional or (since we are not confining
ourselves to writing) multi-dimensional non-linear communication?
Charles Sheffield's "insectoid" language & David Weber's Medusan seem to
be examples of this.

(c) 'wordless conlangs'?
I.e. Was my initial assumption correct? I suspect not  :=(

Confused & seeking enlightenment.
--
Ray
==================================
ray@carolandray.plus.com
http://www.carolandray.plus.com
==================================
"A mind which thinks at its own expense will always
interfere with language."         J.G. Hamann, 1760

Replies