Theiling Online    Sitemap    Conlang Mailing List HQ   

Re: Re : Malat

From:Joshua Shinavier <jshinavi@...>
Date:Wednesday, December 9, 1998, 12:20
> 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