Re: The Language Code

On Friday, May 23, 2003, at 12:24  PM, Nokta Kanto wrote:

> I like the code idea for its concise summation of things. OTOH,
> anything
> that looks like PERL is suspect.
Does it look like Perl? It's not intentionally so.

> It's worth it because I get to say !P if nothing else.
:-)

>> T type
>> f fictional
>> l logical
>> x auxiliary
>> p personal
>> n natural
> I'd add the subjective completeness of the language c (+/-),
> expressing how
> stable and complete the language is. For example c means the language
> is at
> the level of dick-jane-spot sentences. Spot spots pots poised on posts'
> tops. Spot opts to topple said pots. Stop, Spot, stop! Spot stops
> tossing
> pots. Stupid Spot. *ahem* Minuses mean the language is still in a
> state of
> flux, and pluses mean the author is quite sure of its language, and
> understands it well.
I don't think that this would be as useful; if a language has a
negative value for completeness, any typological information about it
is likely to be inaccurate and subject to change. That would defeat the
purpose of the code, which should provide a typological profile of the
language.

> I would add a writing section. Something like this?
>> P phonology
>> w writing
>>    r (+/-) regularity/irregularity. Are there lots of exceptions,
>>        esoteric or etabnannic writing rules?
>>    c uses a consript to write
I like this, but I think it should get its own Capital letter ordered
after Phonology:

W       Writing

And more categories:

t       type of script
        f       featural
        c       abjad (Consonantal)
        g       abugida
        a       alphabetic
        d       (Devanagari-style script -- what's the term?)
        s       syllabic
        l       logographic

(or something along those lines)

>> S syntax
>> b basic word order
> If there are multiple orderings, can they be separated with commas?
Sure.

> Tf !P Mai++f-ht/m7a2c~14g25+ Sb#arga Lc+++d-~150
Don't forget the language name in front!

Thanks for the comments.

Dirk
--
Dirk Elzinga
Dirk_Elzinga@byu.edu

"I believe that phonology is superior to music. It is more variable and
its pecuniary possibilities are far greater." - Erik Satie

Reply