Re: Isolating, Inflected, Word Building, ETC.

ObQuestion: How come, if language has "evolved" for so long, does it
still have so many quirky exceptions etc.?


On 12/5/05, Henrik Theiling <theiling@...> wrote:
> Hi!
>
> Gary Shannon <fiziwig@...> writes:
> > These are some really fascinating topics that make me wish I had
> > majored in linguistics instead of engineering. ;-)
>
> :-)
>
> > But all this makes me suspect that the best way to arrive at a
> > really naturalistic conlang is not to build it from scratch to
> > completion in one step, but to evolve it, step by step, from some
> > starting point, either an existing natlang, or a very rudimentary ad
> > hoc proto-language. If one started, for example, with the few dozen
> > words from the language of the movie "Caveman", and applied, a few
> > hundred years at a time, ten thousand years worth of mutations, it
> > would seem that the result would be a very plausible imitation of a
> > non-existent natlang. Assuming, of course, that the mutations
> > applied at each step are plausible.
>
> YES!  This is a heck of a lot of work to do, but it often results in
> really great conlangs, yes. :-)
>
> I have never managed to do this so far due to the endless work in
> front of me and my limited knowledge (due to lack of interest, I
> think) of (linguistic) history and instead sticked to
> engelangs/artlangs that were constructed according to what my computer
> science back ground dictated. :-) Even that takes so much time (->
> writing the Lisp grammar).  E.g., S11 needs more work.  I'd finally
> like some example sentences, I think!
>
> **Henrik
>

Reply