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-
> 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.