> [mailto:CONLANG@listserv.brown.edu] On Behalf Of Jorg
Rhiemeier
> On the other hand, one should indeed have more than one
conlang
> going. Otherwise, you are likely to incorporate all your
ideas
> in one conlang and thus end up with a kitchen sink language or
> whatever. I have several ideas which I wish to try out, but
> which I feel have no room in Old Albic. So I apply them to
other
> conlang projects - some of them diachronically related to Old
> Albic, others not.
I agree. A lot of my projects are mainly to experiment with
ideas which may or may not find their way into other creations
depending on how the experimentation goes.
> On Fri, 4 Jul 2008 23:14:05 -0400, Dana Nutter wrote:
>
> > This is why I gave up on that approach a long time ago. I
do
> > still see value in an oligosynthetic system. At least there
> > will be some mnemonics to aid in learning vocabulary.
>
> Oligosynthetic schemes suffer from many, though not all, of
the
> problems that weigh down taxonomic schemes. It is not easy to
> break down reality to a restricted number of semantic
primitives,
> and how do you handle proper names and such? You need an
"escape
> mechanism" which allows for "importing" arbitrary lexical
material.
> At least that is what I feel to be the case.
No, it's not easy but it's only difficult if you take it to
extremes as with AUI or Toki Pona. I have an oligosynthetic
project in the works, but there is also a phonosemantic schema
that will underly the root morphemes. It's just an idea I'm
playing with right now. I don't expect to reduce everything
down to 32 roots, though I'd be happy to get it down to the
500-600 range.
Proper names will be handled as distinct entities based on
pronunciation. There will be a particle to introduce them.