Theiling Online    Sitemap    Conlang Mailing List HQ   

Re: Creating a metaconlang; anyone want to join?

From:Sai Emrys <sai@...>
Date:Monday, December 3, 2007, 10:12
On Dec 1, 2007 2:06 PM, John Vertical <johnvertical@...> wrote:
> I had not considered body language (and indeed, I would like this to remain > writable),
Check out David Peterson's "Sign Language IPA".
> * Phoneme splits. Say the host language is English - one could then split > eg. /tS/ into 18 different consonants based on alveolar vs retroflex vs > alveolo-palatal; tenuis vs aspirated vs ejectiv; and plain vs labialized.
Indeed you could!
> * Syntax changes. The fact that the "carrier" here is a single mantra and > not the complete host language givs quite a bit of leeway that might not be > otherwise available.
Depends; what sort of language & mantra? Is this one of those quote-unquote "free variation of word order" deals?
> * Synonym variation, probably including arcaic and/or dialectal allomorphy. > In order to be compatible with phoneme splits, this would probably have to > specify wide semantic categories, while the latter would then further > specify them down...
Again possible. However, this one would be somewhat more difficult to keep language-agnostically meta; you would need some kind of high-level theory about how one does these splits and which means what, and I don't know of anything that could handle it. (I would however be quite interested if you come up with one!)
> Alas, before I get the host language to an usable state (and I might need > the conreligion too...) this isn't going to progress much.
*laugh* Endemic problem, eh? But at least a couple of your proposed ideas could probably be taken chunkwise. One of the nice features of my proposal is that it's highly modular; you could implement one part of it mostly independent from having to do the rest, and have it still be usable. Your phoneme split point seems to me the most viable for such treatment, and English is ripe for exploitation in this manner, given how many things we don't mark at all. It would be somewhat hit-or-miss whether a given word happened to have a phoneme that could be segmented appropriately, but that could just lead to strategic word choice by the participants... (e.g. picking something with 'r' in it so as to be able to leverage a retroflex vs trilled vs etc etc etc distinction) - Sai