Suggestive nonsense (was: K-Rad)

claudio scripsit:

> child: "mullo schnuppel bille bongo mamma pipi" .
> father answers: "grabosch ! borbatz watsch kronk, ghurbratz fratzen pauke !"
Ah yes, Katzenjammerdeutsch.  We have that in English too.

> do words always have to have a meaning ?
I think these words do have meaning, even if we can't see exactly what it is.
English, at least, has a long tradition of semi-meaningful nonsense:

        'Twas brillig, and the slithy toves
        Did gyre and gimble in the wabe;
        All mimsy were the borogoves,
        And the mome raths outgrabe.

Now it is the most elementary observation of anglophone linguistics
(literally; it is an example used in elementary courses) that
this is parseable, and that the proper morphological assignments are:

        It was Adjective, and the Adjective Noun-SING
        Did Verb-INF and Verb-INF in the Noun-SING;
        All Adjective were the Noun-PL,
        And the Adjective Noun-PL Verb-Past.

But the content words themselves, though not one of them is English,
(with the marginal exception of "gyre" = "rotate"), have distinctly English
resonances: they bring to mind similar morphs which are English, as in "slithy"
which was consciously devised as a blend of "sly" and "lithe".

> or do they have also a sound, which got an own kind of "message" ?
Except for onomatopoeia, I think that it is not so much sound as such,
but suggestive sound, that gives such words what meaning they have.

--
John Cowan                                   cowan@ccil.org
One art/there is/no less/no more/All things/to do/with sparks/galore
        --Douglas Hofstadter

Reply