Re: A New Conlang For Your Consideration

John Quijada wrote:
> Greetings Conlang Subscribers:
>
> I just wanted to introduce the new conlang I've been working on for
> the last 25 years, Ithkuil.  It is a combination of a philosophical
> language with a logical language that uses a unique "morpho-phonemic"
> script.  The website presents a highly detailed, comprehensive grammar
> of the language with lots of examples.  The URL is
> http://home.inreach.com/sl2120/Ithkuil
>
> Any feedback would be appreciated.  Thanks.
>
> John Quijada
<<<<

It a Great website designed like a book you can browse. Downloaded it all to
read it sipping my coffee :-)

I am just a bit disappointed with the philosophical viewpoint expressed
there because it is quite academically "PC"--like your example of the
opening door, key, John, etc. Why say that the semantic roles of the key and
of the door have a connection with each other? They have one on the basis of
the English verb "to open" because in the English language the verb "to
open" may also refer to the continuum of "to unlock in order to allow the
door to open" but in languages I do know, the key unlocks the door while the
door moves on its hinge or groove. The key is not an instrument to move the
door open so the key is not an instrument of the lexy "to open". Same with
the room or house or other structure to which the door pertains which
"opens" as well in English, "opening on a room", i.e., making it accessible,
etc.

Also in many natlangs the semantic role of "recipient" may be subdivided
according to the preexisting or resulting underlying behaviour of the
arguments: some "recipients" are expected to interact as partners, some
others to "react" (they are expected to understand, yield, help), some to
change and some to be mere patients (they incorporate the item they receive
or are planted in or taught to, or just are mocked or yelled at.) Because
the expected respective behaviours of all these "recipients" are considered
quite different from each other, these natlangs break down the English
continuum phrase (made of a verb and prepositions drawing their meaning from
the continuum underlying the verb) into a chain of independent serial
predicates like give-transfer-receive, talk-listen, order-aim-obey,
judge-undergo, consume-make-result, etc.. Isn't it a bit artificial to
consider that "receive", "listen" and "obey" are the same "recipient roles"
just because in languages like English the verbs "to tell", "to give", "to
order" use a single preposition or a single case to express them all?

µ.