Theiling Online    Sitemap    Conlang Mailing List HQ   

Re: Language Change

From:Patrick Dunn <tb0pwd1@...>
Date:Wednesday, January 5, 2000, 17:57
On Wed, 5 Jan 2000, Dan Sulani wrote:

> On 4 Jan, Patrick Dunn wrote: > > <snip> > This, paradoxically, can > >de-emphasize the importance of rhyme > > Interesting. Would it then be accurate to say that > in a given lang, the features which are important to > poetry are those which are the hardest to manipulate > in that lang? (sort of a "creative challenge theory" of poetry?) > That might explain one difficulty of trying to appreciate > poetry in translation. What's important to the poet's lang, > and thus to the poet, may not be the same in your lang, and > thus it doesn't come through to you. Hmmm. > CCC (Compulsory Conlang Connection :-) ) > In our postings, we tend to focus on what our conlangs _can_ do. > Would looking at what is difficult for them to do give us > an insight into writing poetry in them? (Paring rtemmu sentences > down to haiku level, for example, would certainly prove a challenge! > Maybe I'll look into it.) > And would this also apply to the semantic/cultural aspects of > language as well as to the phonological/morphological/syntactic aspects?
I think that's one important part of what we consider valuable in poetic technique. It might be a tad bit oversimple, but I think it's a good starting point. Hebrew poetry, for instance (at least, classsically), made use of parallel structures, something very easy to do in English. "the dog bit my leg; the canine chewed my limb; the hound masticated my appendage" But somewhat more difficult in Hebrew, which doesn't have English's incredible slew of synonyms.