Re: A really odd language: Tolborese

On Sun, Sep 01, 2002 at 06:47:40PM -0700, Nihil Sum wrote:
[snip]
> IV -- EXCUSES
>
> The reason why I left in what is clearly redundant is mostly just because it
> is so counter-intuitive for an English speaker like myself. And as I've said
> before, counter-intuitive is cool.
Hmm. I don't know about that. Even though Ebisedian seems so weird, it is
actually quite intuitive for me. In fact, one of my goals in creating
Ebisedian was to make it as unconventional as possible, yet at the same
time as "intuitive" as possible. At least to me. :-P

> But I've got some other excuses too:
> Marking both participants means I could move them around, using different
> word order (PVA, AVP, VAP etc) since it is clear which is the patient and
> which is the agent.
A good ole case system would allow this too. But of course, since you're
going for counter-intuitive...  (But I might add, although Ebisedian does
use a case system, it does so in a way that would make most people cringe.
:-P)

> Leaving the verb unmarked means I can come up with all kinds of very
> specific tenses and moods without having to inflect these for each person
> and number.
Now *that* is nice. Although one might argue that there's no need for
verbs to inflect for person anyway (but that's just my tastes).

> I like the fact that the plurality and type of a noun are marked exclusively
> on OTHER words, and can also be ambiguous if these other words are left out.
[snip]

I find that weirder than the fact that Ebisedian's pronouns do not
distinguish between 2nd and 3rd person. :-P Nevertheless, I like
ambiguities that requires context to determine its meaning. Ebisedian has
a tendency to be quite context-sensitive.


T

--
DOS = De Only System

Reply