Re: Wordless language (WAS: NonVerbal Conlang?)

----- Original Message -----
From: "R A Brown" <ray@...>

> But the question of whether particles ('empty words') are "real words" or
> not is surely just asking whether they are free or bound morphemes and/or
> whether bound morphemes should ever be considered as words.
>
>>> http://assets.cambridge.org/052181/8990/sample/0521818990ws.pdf
>>> includes Dixon & Aikhenvald's quote of several grammarians, including
>>> Milewski, to the effect that the "word" is irrelevant, or at least
>>> not-very-
>>> relevant, in the polysynthetic languages of North America.
>
> Saying the notion is "irrelevant" or "not very relevant" is not the same
> as saying it doesn't exist. For people living in cities awash with
> artificial lighting, the phases of the moon are not very relevant. It
> doesn't mean that the moon does not go through its regular lunations.
>
> The point, as I understand it, is that these North American languages have
> few, if any, unbound morphemes. They are bound in whole phrases, so that
> 'word' and 'phrase' are more or less synonymous (at least by some people's
> analyses).
I find this intriguing.  It might be worth asking John Q. if he considers
his Ithkuil to have words in the traditional sense.  He's compared it to a
form of speed writing, in which he reduces "ideas" to the smallest phonemic
component, such that what look like "words" are whole sentences. Since you
are into speed writing, Ray, maybe you'd care to comment on whether the
components have "wordly" qualities to them.  That's "wordly," not "worldly."
;)

Sally


> It seems to me that if we cannot sensibly discuss whether a language is
> wordless without also discussing morphology. If a language can be
> morphologically analyzed then it seems to me that it must ipso_facto have
> words. The debate will be where to put the white spaces when the language
> is committed to writing. As far as I see it, any one-dimensional,
> sequentially expressed language will have 'words' - the question is the
> exact definition.
>
> To have a language with words (if such a beast is really possible) is, as
> far as I can see, to move away from the 1D sequential model.
>
> --
> Ray
> ==================================
> ray@carolandray.plus.com
> http://www.carolandray.plus.com
> ==================================
> "A mind which thinks at its own expense will always
> interfere with language."         J.G. Hamann, 1760
>