Re: Indicating verbs valence? (Was: The disappeared conlang)
|From:||Stephen Mulraney <ataltanie@...>|
|Date:||Friday, January 25, 2002, 20:01|
On Fri, 25 Jan 2002 06:35:24 -0500
The Gray Wizard <dbell@...> wrote:
> > Well, I don't think it's such a problem - in fact your
> > descriptions are wonderfully
> > clear, once one has been initiated. Oddly, the experience of
> > understanding certain
> > sentences there felt rather like the experience of reading the
> > proof of a mathematical
> > theorem - a feeling of things slotting in as I read...
> Hmmm, could that be because I was trained as a Mathematician and not a
Evidentally, it takes one to know one! I also am a mathematician (& physicst)
by training. Hail fellow, well met etc.
> > 'luculent' - that's not quite a cromulent word, is it ? ;)
> 'luculent' is high on my short list of favorite 'over-the-top' words. I
> like most its almost total lack of self-reference. What could be less
> 'luculent' than the casual use of 'luculent'? But unlike Homer's usage, I
> think you'll find that the OED would quite agree that 'luculent' is indeed
> "a perfectly cromulent word!"
Is it? I based my estimation of its acromulence on a casual perusal of my 9th
edition concise OED - which is a good medium between a small dictionary full of
'easy' words and a huge dictionary filled with every word (It's on the frontier
of my lexical knowledge, in other words). But 'tis not there, alas. I suppose it's
in 'the' OED then.
> Stay curious,