Theiling Online    Sitemap    Conlang Mailing List HQ   

Re: Wordless language (WAS: NonVerbal Conlang?)

From:And Rosta <and.rosta@...>
Date:Sunday, July 2, 2006, 12:51
Eldin Raigmore, On 01/07/2006 23:01:
> I may have meant Jonathan Knibb's or Simon Clarkstone's conlang. In fact I > have not been able to track down the specific conlang I meant. It came up > in a discussion the four of us, with perhaps others, had (i.e. me, And, > Jonathon, and Simon, and possibly others). Maybe And remembers which one I > meant? (Probably I'll just have to keep looking and post about it later.)
> The conlang I meant to mention -- not And's apparently -- had just > two "parts of speech" -- "linkers" (a small closed class) and content- > morphemes. > > The syntax is the same as the morphotactics; the morphotactics is the same > as the syntax; in this conlang there is no difference between morphotactics > and syntax. > > The content-morphemes include many whose semantics would strike a speaker > of a natlang as "particles".
That sounds like Jonathan's ("T4"?). In parts it also sounds very similar to Livagian, but in Livagian there is (for purposes of concision) rampant mismatch between morphology-phonology on the one hand and semantics-syntax on the other. I suppose it is pertinent to remark that one could without difficult design a conlang in which there was perfect homology between morphophonology and syntax, and only a single, uninflected, class of content words, plus various uninflected function words. -- Not a particularly groundbreaking idea, but it constitutes, I believe, the maximum degree of simplicity that conlangers have so far managed to conceive. --And.


R A Brown <ray@...>
Henrik Theiling <theiling@...>