Re: A Language built around a novel grammar

On Nov 11, 2006, at 4:46 PM, Weld Carter, Jr. wrote:

> I joined this list a few weeks ago, and have ‘lurked’, watching to
> see if a thread already exists here that comes close to addressing
> my concern. Since I haven’t found one, let me attempt here to start
> one myself.
>
> Has anyone here done or seen work on a language relying on a
> grammar that does not require the noun/verb distinction? Though
> this may sound preposterous, I know of at least a few Native-
> American tongues that function that way. One member of such a
> speech community got reported to my colleague, Andy as saying, “I
> can speak all day without using a single noun.”
I think there have been a lot of conlangs which make little or no
distinction between noun (and adjective) and verb, although I can't
remember any others offhand except for Sasxsek, which has been
mentioned.  I am working on one myself.  Sadly, it doesn't seem as
original as it once did :)

Actually, does anyone know if there's a list of those conlangs and
natlangs with little or no noun/verb distinction?  I would be
interested in such a list, so that I can compare them.  If there
isn't a list, maybe we could make one now.

As far as natlangs go, I know there are some, such as some Salishan
languages, which have been described as not having the distinction,
but I think you will also find people claiming that they do in fact
have the distinction, but that it is subtle.

[...]
> I have as my objective here to build up a discursive language on a
> specific grammar derived from chosen premises, namely those set
> forth by Alfred Korzybski, as refined by my colleague, C. Andrew
> Hilgartner.
>
> To quote Andy, from a note to one of his papers:
>
> “For me, the non-aristotelian premises of Korzybski consist of
> three undefined terms, along with three postulates.
> “My preferred languaging renders his undefined terms in verb-
> related forms: to structure, to relation, and to order; whereas he
> designated them merely as nouns: structure, order and relation.
> “His three postulates (he labels them 'premises') he expressed in
> two wordings, the first of which reads:
> 1. The map is not the territory.
> 2. the map represents not all the territory.
> 3. The map is self-reflexive.”
> “He then offered an alternate list:
> 1) A word is not the fact, feeling, situation, etc.
> 2) A word covers not all the characteristics of an object, fact,
> feeling, etc.
> 3) Languge is also self-reflexive, in the sense that in language we
> can speak about language.
> “I find it convenient to abbreviate these as: 1) inaccurate, 2)
> incomplete, and 3) self-referential.”
>
> Andy has already built up a grammar and a notation relying on these
> premises, but so far lacks a way to extend that to form a
> discursive means for presenting and discussing its potential
> advantages.  As he has written: “Mankind has not previously had a
> grammar derived from known––consciously chosen––premises to play or
> work with.”  He has found it difficult accurately to convey his
> constructs in a language the very grammar of which contradicts his
> chosen premises!
>
> If you want to hear why anyone would want such a language, please
> ask. I regard the reasons as compelling. I expect some among you
> might find them so, as well.
I would be interested in his reasons.  For me, the reason was that it
just seemed like a cool, novel idea.  As I mentioned, it no longer
seems quite so novel, but it's still cool.

Replies