Theory & Conlanging (Was: Re: theory)

On Sat, Sep 16, 2000 at 01:34:50PM -0700, Marcus Smith wrote:
[snip]
> I try to make my languages by-and-large fit current syntactic and phonological
> theory, but I am not tyrannical about it.  In fact, I have intentionally
> introduced features into Telek that many theories predict shouldn't occur.
> Some of them I give a historical explanation to, but others I don't.  For
> example, my active language has a passive construction, but that is because
> there was originally an indefinite subject that has been as a passive
> morpheme.  On the other hand, verbs can incorporate almost any object, even
> though theory says only "themes" should be able to.  This makes the act of
> creation much more enjoyable to me.
[snip]

True. I don't force myself to only put stuff into my conlang that is 100%
flawless according to theory, nor do I deliberately try to break any
theory. For me, theory is OT1H a guide to help me on when I'm stuck with a
certain dilemma in my conlang, and OTOH somewhat like a confirmation that
something I did makes sense. I try to build as much internal consistency
as possible into my conlang, so that even when it doesn't quite fit with
the theory, I feel that there is some ground to justify what I did.


T