Re: A'liath: This is completely insane
|From:||Andreas Johansson <and_yo@...>|
|Date:||Saturday, October 19, 2002, 10:58|
Ian Maxwell wrote:
>Andreas Johansson wrote:
>>That actually works out at a mere 76 204 800 combinations, according to my
>>calculator, and that assumes that you really has four genders - it says
>>but apparently only three are listed in the parenthesis.
>I already corrected myself on this.
Yes, but I hadn't seen that when I sent my reply. I've been getting posts
with seems to be delays of random length lately.
>Regarding the four genders, by
>"A'liathian/worldly and animate/inanimate" I meant that gender was
>distinguished on two axes: A'liathian vs. worldly, and animate vs.
OK. I read that as (A'liathian)vs(animate and worldly)vs(inanimate), and
simply assumed that "A'liathian" meant non-worldy animate.
>Regarding only having half as many prefixes as I said I did,
>I forgot to list the intentionality distinction, which doubles the
>>I suspect that a language that has to incode that lot of information in
>>every verb would turn agglutinative out of sheer self-defense, or the
>>of its speakers'd explode. Go all the way to the agglutinative end of the
>>spectrum and get a language where every verb starts with a string of
>>prefices! Would probably erode terribly fast, tho', if the speakers are
>>human, at least.
>But, see, they're *not* human. In fact, they are at the extreme end of
>the "brains versus brawn" spectrum, and can only sustain their frail
>bodies via force of will and magic. So half the reason for this form of
>language was to demonstrate just how powerful their minds really are.
>The problem here isn't with the realism, but rather with my ability to
>actually *create* this language within one lifetime
>>BTW, isn't it slightly weird to agree with the number and person with both
>>subject and object(s?), but agree with only the gender of the subject?
>Oh, no no no.... the verbs themselves are gendered. Or, more
>specifically, they are the same words as the nouns, separated only by
>what particular affix is used. (Giving a certain prefix to the base
>morpheme for "to read" would give "a reader", for example, while another
>might give "the thing read" [or "readee"].)
Cool. However, it'd probably be less confusing to call these classes
something else than "gender" then, since "gender" traditionally refers
specifically to classes of nouns.
Broadband? Dial-up? Get reliable MSN Internet Access.