Theiling Online    Sitemap    Conlang Mailing List HQ   

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 > Linguist?
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, > David


The Gray Wizard <dbell@...>The Cromulence of Luculent