Re: Long Languages

"From Http://Members.Aol.Com/Lassailly/Tunuframe.Html" wrote:

> I would appreciate collecting yall's experience about the following nagging
> issue :
> The instinctive structure of my conlang makes words and sentences very long
> although there are very few information crammed in them
Mathias,
    I find myself both empathyzing and not empathyzing with your dilemma.
    First the empathy: although (content) words in rtemmu are reasonably short, I
find that sentences
tend to be rather long.  I've gone round and round about this with myself:
                a.)  It takes longer to say something in rtemmu than in other
langs.  :-(
                b.)  But the translation is only approximate. I'm really saying
                       a lot more per sentence, and more info means more
morphemes.  :-)
                c.)  But who told you to put all that into a sentence?  :-(
                d.)  But I feel that the structure of the lang demands it.   :-)
                e.)  But that's stupid, because ... back to a.)

    How I break out of this is where I do not empathyze with there being any
dilemma.
As far as I'm concerned, the ultimate criterion for a lang was stated when you
wrote:

> I didn't care very
> much about that because it just flowed from my pen and mouth so fluently.
I could only wish that rtemmu would roll fluently out of _my_ pen and mouth!
My feeling is that _every_ lang, nat and con, has its own type of beauty, its own

rhythms and cadence, its own _song_ if you will. Length of utterance plays an
important part in creating that. So what if it takes longer to say something?
Go with the flow (literally!). Create beauty in a "long-style". Go for the epic
if
that's the direction the lang seems to be pointing in. Trust _its_ instincts!
    Of course, there are aspects of lang use where long utterances are unwelcome:

for example, shouting directions to people who are trying to save lives in
dangerous situations; or shouting instructions to players in a fast-paced team
sport.
But most (all?) natlangs have special subsets of shortened words and shortened
grammar to use in extreme cases such as these. Does Tunu have such a subset?

>
>  Is a "long language" a "retarded language" ?
    Mathias, don't be so hard on your lang. One of the first things I learned in
linguistics
was that there is no such thing as a "retarded" lang, any more than groups of
normal
people can be found somewhere in a jungle communicating only with assorted grunts

and groans! All extant natlangs are complex.( Though they may differ as to
exactly where
the complexity lies, sometimes radically so.) I would presume that the same holds
true for our
conlangs.
    It _is_ true that there is a language disorder where a person talks "long":
using
"paragraphs" to say what usually takes one word. On the other hand, there is also
a
language disorder where just the opposite occurs and whole reams of meaning are
compressed
into utterances of only one word. Neither of these is considered "retarded"
speech.
    So hang in there. Even long languages are beautiful!

Dan Sulani

--
 likehsna  rtem  zuv  tikuhnuh  auag  inuvuz  vaka'a.

 A  word  is  an  awesome  thing.