Theiling Online    Sitemap    Conlang Mailing List HQ   

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. David:
> >>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 > >one-word > >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 > >artlangers) > >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 and English.
> 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 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ Sally Caves 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. ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++