Re: restricted semantics language
| From: | David J. Peterson <dedalvs@...> |
|---|
| Date: | Tuesday, June 3, 2008, 22:48 |
|---|
Sure, I've got one:��<http://dedalvs.free.fr/kelenala/>��And a sign language
spinoff:��<http://dedalvs.free.fr/knsl/>��-David�*******************************************************************�"sunly
eleSkarez ygralleryf ydZZixelje je ox2mejze."�"No eternal reward will forgive
us now for wasting the dawn."��-Jim
Morrison��http://dedalvs.free.fr/��On Jun 3, 2008, at 9∞47 AM, Nils
Schäffer wrote:��> hello!�>�> this is my first post to the conlang
mailing list.�>�> i wonder if anyone has got any sources/ideas to a priori
languages�> where the�> main feature is a highly restricted semantics, say
languages that are�> constructed around a set of sememes which are meant to
be�> primitives out of�> which many possible meanings can be generated. i
have read about�> wierzbicka's natural semantic metalanguage and have
something�> similar in�> mind, but without the academic approach and with a
larger corpus with�> perhaps hundreds of primitives.�>�> on one hand it
should do without an inherent taxonomy, as it is�> featured in�> foster's
ro, in favour of giving every single morpheme a well-defined�> meaning; on
the other hand it should not be constructed with a�> complete�> dictionary
in mind, as i think that could tempt the creator to�> determine�>
'interesting' metaphors that have to be remembered, rather than�>
searching�> for a morphosyntax which is attached afterwards to achieve
more�> flexibility�> when inventing new expressions.�>�> any comments
would be helpful�>�> nils�