Re: Four things: Was: Comparison of philosophical languages

The talk word boundries in this thread reminds me of a story. Bear with
me or skip ahead, there's a point at the end.

While Russian is by no means a model of rational regularity, its grammar
is largely done through suffixing a finite set of grammatical word
endings. These endings often have a recognizable shape, such that you
can at least fairly easily tell what part of speech a word is.
Therefore, it should be easier tell word boundries in Russian than in
some languages (like English).

I studied Russian for a couple of years in school, then went to study in
Russia.  At first when I arrived I was overwhelmed by the language. Most
of the time I didn't know what people were saying, and had no clue as to
how to figure it out. After 2 or 3 weeks a remarkable change happened,
literally overnight for me. Suddenly, when someone spoke something I
didn't understand, I heard a string of Russian words. Before, I had
heard just a rush of sounds I didn't understand. After the change I
could ask "What does this word mean" and thus figure out what they said,
where before I just said "I don't understand" a lot.

So I understand the desire to make word boundries easy to recognize. But
my experience felt like that is a matter of exposure, ear training,
reinforcing neural pathways, to the point where it suddenly works. While
I imagine you could structure a language to make this process a little
easier, I don't think you can get rid of the learning process. Any new
language is going to sound like a rush of sounds until your ear learns
to pick out the important distinctions. And once you've done that the
shape of the word boundries won't matter that much because you have
"gotten it" and can do it subconciously. As a consideration in making a
language easy to learn, word boundries have some importance, but should
probably give way to other concerns when they cause other problems.

Andrew, good luck to you with your language. I would say, make a
language that you enjoy. If there is one sentiment that people on this
list should appreciate its, "I'm doing it this way because I like it."
That may be for philosophical reasons, artistic concerns, or just plain
orneriness (Maggel?). And we should all remember that we are here
because we like seeing what other people are doing with language.

Shanivalote!
(I wish us all peacefulness, in Diom)
David Stokes

Sally Caves wrote:

 >3) On the issue of word boundaries in language: For me, understanding ANY
 >spoken foreign language, whether it be French or German (languages seen to
 >be fairly different in their use of word boundaries--witness the famous
 >liaison in French, or the infamous initial mutation of Irish and
Welsh), is
 >initially difficult. When spoken quickly, even Spanish, which I've spent
 >most of my early years learning, runs together for me. I am much better at
 >reading and speaking foreign languages than I am in comprehending them,
 >especially on TV or worse, on the radio, where I can't see the
person's lips
 >move. It takes far more constant practice for me to be able to
understand a
 >foreign language, and it's not word boundaries that bother me so much
as the
 >phrase boundaries. If I can get the phrases, the words will seem to fit
 >into them. This may simply be the way my brain is organized, and the lack
 >of opportunity (I was only one year in Wales, and only two years in
 >Switzerland, alas, before I was whisked back to the States). But I don't
 >see how any invented language can fix that failing of mine. In any new
 >language, I feel transparent, as though the words are arrows and flying
 >right through me instead of lodging in my comprehension.
 >
 >4) I am tired of the recent crankiness and fisty-cuffs on this list. I
 >would like to see less heat and more meat, as of old.>
 >
 >
 >Yours faithfully,
 >Sally Caves

Replies