Re: LUNATIC again
|From:||Sally Caves <scaves@...>|
|Date:||Sunday, November 8, 1998, 0:19|
On Sat, 7 Nov 1998, David G. Durand wrote:
in response to Lojbab who wrote:
> >languages. Far from it. I am merely showing that more precise use of
> >English can prevent misunderstandings and misevaluations of your work.
> >People WILL respond differently to things that are called "art" than to
> >things that purport by their label to be the "real thing" that the art is
> >supposed to resemble or represent.
My mother's a sculptor. She will frequently say, I'm working on my
"lion." In context, we all know what she means. No one thinks that by
calling it a "lion" she purports by her words that it is the real thing.
Were she to try to urge a gallery to display her lion, she would probably
speak of it as a sculpture. But she's "in house," as it were. So are we
here on Conlang.
> >>One word-glosses are a characteristic of expediency of documentation, I
> >>think, not just of poverty of distinction.
I will second this...
> >But it is impossible to tell, unless you actually see usages where the
> >glosses differ in meaning from the language they translate. Alltogther too
> >often, people have clearly failed to consider the problem of avoiding a
> >relexification of English semantics. It takes hard work to avoid distinctions
> >that in many cases are subconcious. maybe most conlangers (including
> >do this work. But the posts of lexicons that I see on this list usually
> >don't give any clue to this work.
> This is true. My question is why assume that they _didn't_ do this. And, in
> any case, it's still a different language if the grammar is different, even
> if the word-concepts map one-to-one.
Just another point: some of the new conlangers have lexical programs that
allow them to make glossaries and "flip" them for ease in dictionary
making--it's immensely time-consuming to enter each word and its
definition(s) by hand; I thought briefly about doing this for T. but it
works best only if you HAVE a one-to-one relationship between your word
> Insofar as you claim that language is definable, I disagree. And I
> definitely think that such a single-minded notion is out of place here,
> where so many need to push the boundaries of language.
These boundaries DO need to be pushed, and for all the reasons that I've
marshalled as well. Sally
Li fetil'aiba, dam hoja-le uen.
volwin ly, vul inua aiba bronib.
This leaf, the wind takes her.
She's old, and born this year.