Re: The philosophical language fallacy (was Re: Evanescence of information (was Re: Going NOMAIL: Honeymoon))
|Date:||Sunday, July 6, 2008, 16:27|
> [mailto:CONLANG@listserv.brown.edu] On Behalf Of JorgRhiemeier
> On the other hand, one should indeed have more than oneconlang
> going. Otherwise, you are likely to incorporate all yourideas
> 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 toother
> 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. Ido
> > 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, ofthe
> problems that weigh down taxonomic schemes. It is not easy to
> break down reality to a restricted number of semanticprimitives,
> and how do you handle proper names and such? You need an"escape
> mechanism" which allows for "importing" arbitrary lexicalmaterial.
> 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
Proper names will be handled as distinct entities based on
pronunciation. There will be a particle to introduce them.