Re: Re : Malat

> Garrett :
> Also, no matter how logical you try to make your language, it's impossibl=
e for=20
everything stated in the language to be logical. The only thing I can=20
successfully make logical is the derivation of words and the grammar of the=
=20
language.

The derivation of words is one thing you needn't try too hard to make logic=
al;
a word which is the direct sum of its parts is usually not worthy of a
separate word.  Make your derivation reasonable and clear, but don't worry
about logic within words.  I have all kinds of words which are absurd from
a logical viewpoint, but which work just as well as more definitive words
as they have an understood meaning independent of their names.  For instanc=
e,
an English "jack-in-the-pulpit" is a flower, not a man.  Nevertheless this
word is livelier than the taxonomical classification and more memorable.


> Mathias :
> Now, let me sum up : natlang seem sometime *illogical* because theycan't=
=20
consistently derive a noun of result, beneficiary, etc from every single ve=
rb.

Natlangs seem illogical to me, but this doesn't have anything to do with th=
eir
methods for deriving words -- rather with their syntax, and with the defini=
tions
of words.


> Garrett :
> Like Rick said in his noun section, it's impossible to logically derive e=
very=20
noun in your language from a verb concept; the derivations can only be slig=
htly=20
related, but, by using these derivations you cut down on roots you need.
> Less vocabulary =3D less time to learn...
> Mathias :
> I've personally experienced that it's not less vocabulary because the mor=
e you=20
derive away from core-case actors, the fuzzier the meaning of the words get=
s=20
(hi, Josh :-).

Right, in most cases.  If the component words are "fuzzy", then combining t=
hem
produces a word even fuzzier than any of them.  If the components are clear
and logical (I'm not implying that these are better, at least not reg. logi=
cal)
then their combinations will also be clear and logical.  But "fuzzy" parent
concepts generally beget far fuzzier children. :-)


> Garrett :
> I don't like poetry myself...
I like some, though I'm not great at writing it; my rhyming poems in Danove=
n
(what few of them I've ever written) generally would sound more at home in =
a
lively medieval tavern than in a book of literature :)


> Mathias :
> Maybe because poetry thrives on reshuffling and blurring relations and=20
operators between words... Freedom is frightening. We know that ;-)

Poetry might be seen as a threat to a language weak in non-"logical" areas.
I think of it as a great test of a language's flexibility -- if a language
can be both "logical" *and* serve as a medium for beautiful and expressive
poetry, then it's at least a good start.

Josh


        _/_/      _/_/  _/_/_/_/   Joshua Shinavier            =20
         _/        _/  _/         Loorenstrasse 74, Zimmer B321=20
        _/        _/  _/_/_/_/   CH-8053 Z=FCrich              =20
 _/    _/  _/    _/        _/   Switzerland                 =20
_/_/_/_/  _/_/_/_/  _/_/_/_/   http://members.tripod.com/~Paradox5

Danoven/Aroven: http://www.geocities.com/Athens/Crete/5555/ven.htm