Re: Fictional auxlangs as artlangs (was Re: Poll)

> Date: Tue, 16 Dec 2008 19:43:16 -0500> From: deinx.nxtxr@SASXSEK.ORG>
> Phonologically it only has one really odd phoneme. The only> grammatical thing that I see
> being "different" are the verb prefixes> that represent subject-object
> combinations. Beyond that I'd say the> lexicon would be the worst part to
> learn because it's rooted in the> fictional Klingon culture.
 
On Klingon phonology, one "unnatural" characteristic is that it has a voiced
labial fricative, but no corresponding unvoiced.
 
Regarding the subject-object prefixes, I seem to recall reading of a feature like this
(at least a limited version) existing in some Native American languages. If I
remember, this feature exists to some degree in Lakhota (there used to be a
Lakhota class taught at a university in Nebraska, where I live, and I briefly
skimmed the textbook.) This feature in Lakhota might even be extremely limited
-- only first-person subject, second-person object. Or something along those
lines.
 
Makes some sense that a Lakhota feature might be used, since Dr. Okrand has his PhD
in comparitive linguistics between Native American and East Asian languages.
 
 
_________________________________________________________________
Send e-mail faster without improving your typing skills.
http://windowslive.com/Explore/hotmail?ocid=TXT_TAGLM_WL_hotmail_acq_speed_122008

Reply