Re: Re : Re: Artyom Kouzminykh: Answes&proposal

Dans un courrier dat=E9 du 23/08/99 00:49:42  , Charles a =E9crit :

> I got confused, thought I was posting to AUXLANG ...
AUXLANG ?=20
i'll have a try there when i've made up a conlang with an
auxlangesque grammar. same for Tomato, i guess ?
can't wait having fun arguing.

>  People can pick up pidgin syntax in about 5 minutes in speech,
>  so a "practical auxlang" (logical contradiction)
the only thing that pidgin lacks are genuine PoS.
but so do natlangs and IALs : "adverb" or "gerund"
only shows you either want to refer to or get rid
of your words subsequent/precedent but does not
make them a real S or V of another SVO sequence.
we naturally mix up spacial and phrasal deictic.
this is not to say that we cannot tell one from another
and create and use specific words for phrasal deictic.
make such an easy deictic and pidgin looks even more
pidgin and is even better.

 would almost certainly
>  *be* a pidgin. But in writing, morphology raises its various heads.
>  And this is just another misplaced thought, please don't sue me.
i guess you refer to parsability problem and length of words.
and apparently this is a big problem in your eyes.
so i'd like to convince you it is not.

we are conlangers so we can specialize specific sounds
for specific functions. ages ago i decided to specialize semivowels,
aspiration and N for that (and discovered last year that Rick Morneau
does the same now).
i know you too specialize w, y and i don't think that it is any more
artificial than specializing [ ' ] in separating VC.. words (german) or
VC syllables (lojban) or generally having a specific
vowel have a systematic function when stuck at a specific place
(esperanto). everything is encoding.
japanese would find that auxlang very natural which would=20
have all verbs finish either in a consonant or a vowel
because their language has specific rules to deal with that
(kir-u > kitta : to cut; ki-ru > kita : to wear clothes).
and indonesians specialize the schwa @ for grammatical
purpose in a very productive way.
and finding N in the middle of a khmer word unmistakebly
shows it is a factitive.
and some asian language make factitive by aspirating the
first consonant of the verb.
and chinese and african manding would not mind have words
monosyllabic or only ending in V or V~ or changing tones
to show functions.

so stop wingeing  ;-)


mathias=20
=20