Re: Language Change

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.