Re: Wordless language (WAS: NonVerbal Conlang?)

Sai Emrys wrote:
> Moving this to a new thread...
>
> On 6/28/06, Eldin Raigmore <eldin_raigmore@...> wrote:
>
>> I want to open a third meaning;
>> (3) a spoken-and-heard language without words.
Which, of course, was originally what I thought that other thread was
about :)
Anyway, Eldin, thanks for opening it up.

> ...
>
>> http://people.emich.edu/tseely/ondefinitionofword.htm
>> is a very good introduction to the problem.
>
> " Definition of a word:
>                                    Stress
> Phonological                 Vowel harmony
>                                    Phonological processes
>
>                                                      Mobility
> Morphological-syntactic                    Uninterruptibility
>                                                      Internal stability"
>
> So how would a NLF2DWS fused symbol (or set of symbols, or whatever
> you'd call the thing) fit? It would not be phonological in any sense
> (perhaps one can create graphical analogs?). And because of the
> fusion, it would be both interruptible and internally unstable; dunno
> about mobility.
I think the concept "word" does become fuzzy in a NLF2DWS, at least how
I understand what a NLF2DWS is. (I waiting eagerly to see some actual
examples   :)

The Morphological-syntactic definition above is of course related to
natlangs and these are, or were, spoken in their primary form. Written
forms employed for them are (or were) representation of the spoken form.
Now, as you say, a NLF2DWS, as we have discussed it here, does not have
a one-to-one spoken form. If a person needed to verbalize the script
s/he would do some natllang or other - and different people's
verbalization would not be the same. So we are dealing with a different
beast than a natlang IMO.

> For that matter, can  anyone suggest a method of doing wordless
> language that does not involve a fusional 2dws? It's all I can think
> of, but surely there are other means...
Yep - that's what I'd kind of hope would be suggested on that other
thread. The idea of telepathic communication crops up often in SciFi -
and R. Srikanth's Lin was supposed to be a written representation of
telepathic communication. The latter, tho, clearly has words. But does
such communication necessarily require the notion of 'words'.

> FWIW, I think it's worth putting aside the question about whether
> particles are "real words" or not, unless we're to talk about a
> language that would somehow be entirely composed thereof. (What would
> it be like?)
As far as I can see, it would convey no meaning. If we have particles
only, there are no lexical words. We'd, I guess, get a whole lot of
information about plurality or not, temporal & aspectual references etc
etc, but no indication what these all applied to. Nor am I persuaded
that such an unsatisfactory 'language' would be wordless (see below).

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).

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

Replies