Re: CHAT: Conlang Cycles

On Sun, 8 Dec 2002 10:01:32 -0500, Keenan <makeenan@...> wrote:

>Jeff Jones wrote:
>>
>> On Sat, 7 Dec 2002 10:54:58 -0500, Keenan <makeenan@...> wrote:
>
>> "Lablang" is what I use when I bother to use a term. Most of my languages
>> are lablangs.
>
>Tell, tell.
>
>> If anyone seriously objects to this sort of thing, we could probably move
>> the discussion to Engelang.
>
>Is there an Engelang group? When did that happen?
I think they started last summer. There's not much activity. Messages are at

http://groups.yahoo.com/group/engelang/messages

but you may have to join to see the archives. And Rosta's in charge IIRC.

>> >Nobody will have a
>> >chance in hell understanding it but......well, I don't care.
>>
>> Unless of course they're able to sing, whistle, chew gum, play chess,
>> hold their breath, and fly a kite simultaneously -- while riding a
>> bicycle underwater.
>
>LOL. You know I was thinking that people *ought* to be able to
>understand speedtalk as spoken. Its the same mental process as reading.
>Nobody reads a word letter by letter and then assembles the meaning in
>their heads. People recognize the *entire* word as a whole. It seems
>that same process should come into play when recognizing speedtalk
>words.
Yes, but the trouble with Heinlein's Speedtalk is that meaning *is*
assembled letter by letter, unlike with natlangs. Gulf says "the same word
is not likely to recur". Pattern recognition requires recurrence, doesn't
it? Still, I'll wait to see what you come up with.

>> > I'm trying to arrange it so that words represented by
>> > consonants are the frequently used ones.
>>
>> That last sounds like a good idea.
>
>I thought so. We'll see how it turns out.
>
>> About 525 phonemes is around half the number Heinlein mentioned.
>
>Right. I think he mentioned 850. In another of his books called 'Time
>Enough for love' the hero of the story asks a computer to implant the
>900 basic words of the local language into his mind as he sleeps.
>Apparently Heinlein thinks that is enough. I don't think we do but......
Right. But he later says "thousand-odd phonetic letters".

>I forgot about labialization. That gives me ca.1900 words to work with.
>Ok has around 1700 and I don't seem to have much trouble saying things
>with Ok.
It looks like you've got everything well covered, then.

>> Heinlein mentions something about not distinguishing between nouns and
>> verbs, doesn't he? I suspect you'll have to scrap the one-to-one
>> relationship with Basic English and use Basic English only to check for
>> semantic gaps. But I haven't looked at Basic English in a while.
>
>I have the Basic English vocabulary incorporated into Ok's vocabulary.
>And Speedtalk is going to be a relex of Ok. God I'm lazy!
>
>I have heard people express dissatisfaction with basic English before
>but I'm not sure what the problem was.
>
>> Sure thing (can't say "OK" in this context!)
>
> :P
>
>Expect an example of Speedtalk later today! I should come up with
>another name though ,huh.
Expectation mode initiated!
A translation of "speed talk" in the language itself, I would assume.

Jeff

>-Duke

Reply