Re: Looking for a case: counting

I emphasized the fact that Ms X doesn't drive because
I thought it was important for the meaning of this
sentence, but one could do without.

I tried to use the simplest possible grammar AND the
simplest possible vocabulary. Of course I was thinking
of dialog experiments between man and chimpanzes, but
also between man and software.

I tried not to use pronouns, except 'that', referring
to 'what the speaker just said'. I didn't want to mix
tenses and aspects with the main idea, that's what I
added them at the end, like a final layer of paint. I
don't intend to mean that there are actually natlangs
doing so.

I also tried to describe the action in its
development, because it's not evident to imagine the
beginning of the action, the action itself, and the
result of the action in a unique sentence. I think
that when you tell stories to your mates in a bar, you
often do so. One idea after the other. It's much more
evocative, the listeners can imagine themselves inside
the story.

(The final word 'Ugh' was not intended to be an
offence towards American First Nations, it's only the
word concluding the speech. One could say 'Koko-say
finished', or 'Over', or 'Roger', or 'Merci de votre
attention' instead. It means: now it's your turn to
talk).

--- takatunu <takatunu@...> wrote:
> I don't quite understand why you detail that Mrs. X
> doesn't drive and why
> your repeat sentences with two different subjects.
> To speak a language like
> Khmer or a creole or a pidgin, you need to breakdown
> processes in a
> chrono-logical way. You don't say "Koko move city
> inside car"; You rather
> say: "Koko (in) inside car; (He) go_to city." "Koko
> and Mrs X smash the car
> with a hammer in the garage" is: "Koko and Mrs X;
> (They) use hammer; (They)
> smash car; (They/it) locate garage."
>
> Complexity of syntax and number of words are two
> different things. You could
> imagine a language with a simple syntax and a
> precise enough vocabulary. You
> could also have coreferencing pronouns pointing to
> the word or the clause
> precedent or subsequent. "Koko-say happen sun-up"
> would simply be "This
> (=the event described in the clause before")
> (takes_place) every day."
>
> Trying to breakdown words into smaller parts and
> these into self-explaining
> "primitive" particles lengthens words at best. From
> Sumerians to Chinese,
> languages that have an analytical vocabulary made of
> compounds don't
> breakdown their components below a certain level of
> meaning because it does
> not make sense.
>
> Philippe Caquant <herodote92@...> wrote:
> >>>>
> Your remark is perfectly relevant. But would Koko be
> able to express such a complex idea ? I doubt it.
> Maybe some Super-Koko could do it:
> - You listen Koko say.
> - Koko has car.
> - Koko sit inside car.
> - Ms-X sit inside car.
> - Koko drive car.
> - Ms-X no drive car.
> - Car move city.
> - Koko move city inside car.
> - Ms-X move city inside car.
> - Car come city.
> - Koko come city inside car.
> - Ms-X come city inside car.
> - That Koko-say.
> - Koko-say happen sun-up.
> - Koko-say happen sun-down sun-up.
> - Koko-say happen sun-up sun-down sun-up.
> - That Koko-say.
> - Ugh !
> (I'm not quite satisfied about the translation of
> 'every day' into 'sun-up / sun-down sun-up / sun-up
> sun-down sun-up', perhaps there could be some other
> possibility).
> <<<<<

=====
Philippe Caquant

"Le langage est source de malentendus."
(Antoine de Saint-Exupery)

__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Mail SpamGuard - Read only the mail you want.
http://antispam.yahoo.com/tools