Re: This is not a conlang.

----- Original Message -----
From: "Adrian Morgan (aka Flesh-eating Dragon)" <dragon@...>


> Sally Caves wrote, quoting myself where indicated:
>
>> I'll qualify that again.  If it doesn't have a translation, it would
>> be difficult to determine that it was gibberish.  But try putting a
>> translation to it.  Then you would run into difficulties.
>
> I made a start on trying to extrapolate a grammatical structure in
> another post. I'm sure it could be done, but not if a corresponding
> translation were created a priori.
Well, that's what I mean.  What tipped me off for the Tenga was the
translation.

>> > If you're ever in Adelaide we'll have to practice on each other. I'd
>> > enjoy that :-)
>>
>> HA!  Adelaide it is, next stop!  Maybe we could get Richard K. to come
>> down,
>> too.  He likes to do this kind of thing, as I described.
>
> The only conlangers I've met in person are Irina and Boudewijn, and
> that was when I was in Europe in February 2000 (it was Irina who gave
> me the address of the List). I spoke a bit of gibberish to Irina
> whilst on the train to Utrecht.
Ah yes!  Long time conlangers.  So did either of the Rempts return with
same? :)

>> > Devil's advocate (even though that's rather an ironic phrase in
>> > context):
>>
>> :)
>>
>> > an angelic language could very easily not express the
>> > concept of God as a lexical item; the concept would more likely be
>> > embedded in the grammar in less regular ways. :-)
>>
>> Right, that is, if you believe in an "angelic language" with an
>> interpretable grammar, and words that have some kind of
>> correspondence to things of the Real World.  It's very appealing to
>
> Of course, I /was/ only playing Devil's Advocate, and entirely agree
> with your scepticism on the matter.
Does anybody have an answer to my question about the statement I quoted: "A
bird could fly between the subject and predicate of God's language."  I
heard it in my Latin class thirty years ago.  In other words, the language
of God is a language that is inconceivable for human beings, in that it
erases the difference between abstraction and concretion, signifier and
signified.  It might not be anybody medieval, but a modern scholar who is
attempting to explain negative philosophy, or apophasis.

> BTW, since you weren't around at the time, I'm vaguely curious about
> what you think of the significant events in the recent history of the
> list, in particular the flag?
I don't know anything about the flag.  What is this?  I've only heard hints.
And what other significant events in recent history?

Sally