Re: Dublex (was: Washing-machine words (was: Futurese, Chinese,
| From: | Jeffrey Henning <jeffrey@...> |
|---|
| Date: | Friday, May 17, 2002, 18:32 |
|---|
Raymond Brown comuni:
> I can well believe that - but all attempts to reduce meaning to 'essential
> basics' from the "catalanguage" IALs of the 17th cent to the Dutton's "491
> root-ideas" of the 20th cent. and contemporary Dublex's 400 primitives,
> have seemed to me to create more problems than they solve.
>
> (Sorry Jeffrey - but as And says:
> At 3:02 am +0100 17/5/02, And Rosta wrote:
> >
> >For my own conlanging, the 400 roots are an irrelevance, but a list
> >of high quality compounds could be quite useful.
> )
No worries, Ray, but that's not at all what I am attempting. I would never
group Dublex with those languages, with Ro or similar efforts. I make no
claim about these 400 roots reflecting any universal truths or categories.
I'm looking for an objective, empirical, quantifiable result. I'm simply
seeking the 400 roots that will produce the highest percentage of useful
words from the 160,000 possible two-root compounds. Someone can objectively
demonstrate a better 400 roots for compounding simply by creating their own
system.
Best regards,
Jeffrey
http://jeffrey.henning.com
http://www.langmaker.com
Replies