Conlang: Re: NonVerbal Conlang? (Eldin Raigmore, Jun 29 '06, 0:20)

>>No, "oral" is the term. But recall: it was one person that posted the >>question, and they used the term "non-verbal". Seeing that word, >>one was left with two possibilities: (1) a language without verbs, >>or (2) a language that didn't have a spoken component. > >No - there is the possibility: (3) a language without words. > >Indeed (2) did not occur to me. > >>Though >>technically speaking the first definition is the correct one, pragmatic >>concerns indicated to most that the second definition was the >>appropriate one. After all, the goal in responding was to answer >>the question of the poster. > >Indeed it is - and it was, I agree, clear in the poster's mail that "a >language without verbs" was not meant, which is why I thought it meant >"a language without words." I thought 'Is such an animal possible? Are >all these examples really wordless (I assumed some were)? Looks as tho >this could be interesting.' > >[snip] > >> o that's why I interacted with the term "non-verbal" the way I did. > >That's when I was getting puzzled & confused. I was thinking of asking >for clarification but Sally posted her Kelen post .... > >>And because I was thinking that way, when I saw you responded >>with Kelen, I first thought, "Wait...Kelen has a signing component...?" >>Oops! > >Then, of course, when Sally asked: 'Is the proper term for "oral" in >signing "verbal"? A *verbal* language as opposed to one signed by the >hands?" Light began to dawn. > >I'm glad to hear the answer is "No" - but a little sad to realize that >it was not, apparently, a 'fully multi-dimensional non-sequential >language' thread after all :=( >

From:	Eldin Raigmore <eldin_raigmore@...>
Date:	Thursday, June 29, 2006, 0:20