There are 15 messages in this issue.
Topics in this digest:
1.1. Re: infinite sentences (was: Word Limit)
From: Mathieu Roy
1.2. Re: infinite sentences (was: Word Limit)
From: George Corley
2a. Re: Loglan VS Natlang
From: MorphemeAddict
2b. Re: Loglan VS Natlang
From: Padraic Brown
3a. Re: Loglan[g] VS Natlang
From: Mathieu Roy
3b. Re: Loglan[g] VS Natlang
From: R A Brown
3c. Re: Loglan[g] VS Natlang
From: Leonardo Castro
3d. Re: Loglan[g] VS Natlang
From: Allison Swenson
3e. Re: Loglan[g] VS Natlang
From: Jim Henry
4.1. Re: Word Limit
From: Matthew Martin
4.2. Re: Word Limit
From: Alex Fink
5a. Re: Romanization: digraphs vs. diacritics
From: Padraic Brown
5b. Re: Romanization: digraphs vs. diacritics
From: Alex Fink
6. Vulcan Language (was: Loglan VS Natlang)
From: George Corley
7. THEORY: Practical limit of inflection complexity?
From: Leonardo Castro
Messages
________________________________________________________________________
1.1. Re: infinite sentences (was: Word Limit)
Posted by: "Mathieu Roy" [email protected]
Date: Fri Jan 18, 2013 2:29 am ((PST))
<<This reminds me of something I heard about for mathematics -- that we know
for similar reasons that there are an infinite number of prime numbers (you
can always find a higher one), but no one has ever formally proven it.>>
Well yes there is a proof. Let's say there is a finite number of primes.
Take a list of all of them. Then multiply all of these prime together and
let's call the result X. X+1 is another prime (because in order to be
divisible by a prime - or any number other than 1 and X+1 - we would have
had to add this prime to X, and 1 isn't a prime). X+1 wasn't on the list
because it's bigger than all number on the list since we multiply them and
all of them were bigger than one. So we now have a prime number that wasn't
on the list of all prime numbers. Therefore the list did not have all prime
numbers. So there's an infinite amount of prime number. Reductio ad
absurdum.
<<That's hard to say. First, you would have to determine the lexicon you
are generating from (and lexica of languages, I imagine, are arbitrarily
large
-- no doubt each individual's lexicon is finite, but it is unrealistic to
expect to be able to catalog all words known by all speakers). My guess
that generating a random string from any reasonably useful dictionary will
have a very low chance of providing a valid sentence, even allowing
grammatical sentences that are semantically/pragmatically nonsense like
"Colorless green ideas sleep furiously.">>
Yes of course. I was thinking about using "Basic English". And I agree that
there's probably a very low chance that the sentence be valid. And maybe
that would be more feasible to start with a lower number, such as 9 instead
of 15.
-Mat
Messages in this topic (50)
________________________________________________________________________
1.2. Re: infinite sentences (was: Word Limit)
Posted by: "George Corley" [email protected]
Date: Fri Jan 18, 2013 2:44 am ((PST))
On Fri, Jan 18, 2013 at 4:29 AM, Mathieu Roy <[email protected]>wrote:
> <<This reminds me of something I heard about for mathematics -- that we
> know
> for similar reasons that there are an infinite number of prime numbers (you
> can always find a higher one), but no one has ever formally proven it.>>
> Well yes there is a proof. Let's say there is a finite number of primes.
> Take a list of all of them. Then multiply all of these prime together and
> let's call the result X. X+1 is another prime (because in order to be
> divisible by a prime - or any number other than 1 and X+1 - we would have
> had to add this prime to X, and 1 isn't a prime). X+1 wasn't on the list
> because it's bigger than all number on the list since we multiply them and
> all of them were bigger than one. So we now have a prime number that wasn't
> on the list of all prime numbers. Therefore the list did not have all prime
> numbers. So there's an infinite amount of prime number. Reductio ad
> absurdum.
But my understanding was that that is not a formal mathematical proof (by
whatever rigid standard of logic that mathemeticians define a "proof"), but
Wikipedia disagrees with me, listing several different proofs of the
infinity of primes: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prime_number
I dunno. This is not a math list, so I suppose this discussion doesn't
need to go any further. Maybe I'm thinking of some other obvious fact of
mathematics that can't be formally proven.
> <<That's hard to say. First, you would have to determine the lexicon you
> are generating from (and lexica of languages, I imagine, are arbitrarily
> large
> -- no doubt each individual's lexicon is finite, but it is unrealistic to
> expect to be able to catalog all words known by all speakers). My guess
> that generating a random string from any reasonably useful dictionary will
> have a very low chance of providing a valid sentence, even allowing
> grammatical sentences that are semantically/pragmatically nonsense like
> "Colorless green ideas sleep furiously.">>
> Yes of course. I was thinking about using "Basic English". And I agree that
> there's probably a very low chance that the sentence be valid. And maybe
> that would be more feasible to start with a lower number, such as 9 instead
> of 15.
>
I would go with 5. I'm not sure how long sentences tend to be in normal
speech, but I think that they're probably rather short.
Still, I don't think you could calculate the probability with pure
mathematics. You'd need to generate a bunch of sentences, ask a native
speaker for grammaticality judgements, and do statistical analysis from
that.
Messages in this topic (50)
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
2a. Re: Loglan VS Natlang
Posted by: "MorphemeAddict" [email protected]
Date: Fri Jan 18, 2013 3:23 am ((PST))
On Thu, Jan 17, 2013 at 6:21 PM, Matthew Martin <[email protected]
> wrote:
> There exists a people who should all speak a loglan and that is the
> Vulcans.
But the Vulcans of Star Trek do NOT exist. Similarly, Klingons do not
exist, even though their are fluent speakers of Klingon.
stevo
I discussed this elsewhere and those who know more about Star Trek than
> seem to be saying that there is too much already written about Vulcans and
> their space elvish language, but I think real world Vulcans would either
> convert their natural language to a loglan or write one from scratch.
>
> And that's all I'll say because we're too close to auxlang advocacy and
> that would require switching to the other mailing list to continue the
> discussion.
>
> >Do you think it would be good that everyone be able to speak a loglan? I
> >have been arguing all night on this. Personally I think it would be good.
>
> >If you want me to define what I mean by good, let me know, but for now I
> let
> >you define it has you want.
>
> >-Mat
>
Messages in this topic (7)
________________________________________________________________________
2b. Re: Loglan VS Natlang
Posted by: "Padraic Brown" [email protected]
Date: Fri Jan 18, 2013 6:44 am ((PST))
--- Mattieu Roy scrievit:
> Do you think it would be good that everyone be able to speak a loglan?
> I have been arguing all night on this. Personally I think it would be
> good.
>
> If you want me to define what I mean by good, let me know, but for now I
> let you define it as you want.
I think that in not knowing your reference point, the whole question and
discussion are meaningless. Reason being, by stressing the fact that you're
not going to offer a definition you seem to be intimating that there is
some secondary or alternate meaning in play or some ulterior motive. "Good"
has too many definition and is too varied in possible intent for you to
leave it undefined.
Therefore, I am hereby ignoring the stated question, relying on the
unagreed upon definition of "good" and replaced it with a word of less
potential contention: "necessary".
I'm guessing you meant "loglang", i.e. logical language? If so, no. No one
really has any need for such a thing. Daily existence and daily needs are
rarely so wanting of logical expression or precision that a loglang would
foist upon it.
On the contrary, the very precision and rigorous order so imposed by a
highly logical language would, in my opinion, only serve to dehumanise or
denaturlise the balanced chaos of ordinary life. I am no fan of logical,
or in general constructed auxiliary languages, so perhaps some bias might
be in play here.
In any event, natural languages (and of course my primary experience here
is English) are entirely capable of any reasonable amount of logic,
precision and order needed by anyone for any purpose. We in general are
just too lazy to engage in such logical speech in a consistent manner.
--- Matthieu Roy wrote:
> What are the advantages of speaking a less logical language (a language
> with grammar rules with a lot of exceptions, a lot of words with
> ambiguity, etc.)?
Ray said it best: we are humans. And humans are not by nature logical or
even terribly rational beings (we do try, though!). We tend to see what
isn't there and come up with nonsensical explanations for things. A less
than logical language that is good at ambiguity and natural poesy, but that
can at need be aligned on a more logical plan is the best fit. It's what
our own brains and our own culture have collectively and unconsciously
decided works well enough for human communication. It may not be perfect,
it certainly isn't entirely logical but it works, and it's so easy baby can
learn it, and those are two great advantages over the more experimental
loglangs that require intense study and even the 'experts' can't always
get right.
--- On Fri, 1/18/13, MorphemeAddict <[email protected]> quipped:
> --- Matthew Martin <[email protected] wrote:
>
> > There exists a people who should all speak a loglan and that is the
> > Vulcans.
>
> > I discussed this elsewhere and those who know more about Star Trek than
> > me seem to be saying that there is too much already written about
> > Vulcans and their space elvish language,
>
> But the Vulcans of Star Trek do NOT exist.
True, and he didn't say they actually exist, but even if they did, there
would be no reason to suppose they must speak a logical language (such as
Lojban). We know just enough about Star Trek Vulcan culture, physiology
and psychology to know that they are not so different from us: they are
not logical by nature, but rather by long and arduous training. It may
very well be that those Vulcans who are deepest in the art of logic use
some kind of loglang as a second language; but I'd doubt that such a beast
would be their cradle language.
Within the ST universe, we also know that Romulans and Vulcans are very
close (if not identical) physiologically and they have a shared history.
It would stand to reason that the basic nature of the Vulcan language(s)
is more like that of the Romulans, barring some sort of radical purge.
> > but I think real world Vulcans would either convert their natural
> > language to a loglan or write one from scratch.
They might very well do the latter.
> > And that's all I'll say because we're too close to auxlang advocacy and
> > that would require switching to the other mailing list to continue the
> > discussion.
Padraic
Messages in this topic (7)
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
3a. Re: Loglan[g] VS Natlang
Posted by: "Mathieu Roy" [email protected]
Date: Fri Jan 18, 2013 3:27 am ((PST))
What are the advantages of speaking a less logical language (a language with
grammar rules with a lot of exceptions, a lot of words with ambiguity, etc.)?
-Mat
Messages in this topic (5)
________________________________________________________________________
3b. Re: Loglan[g] VS Natlang
Posted by: "R A Brown" [email protected]
Date: Fri Jan 18, 2013 4:29 am ((PST))
On 18/01/2013 11:27, Mathieu Roy wrote:
> What are the advantages of speaking a less logical
> language (a language with grammar rules with a lot of
> exceptions, a lot of words with ambiguity, etc.)?
Being human? :)
--
Ray
==================================
http://www.carolandray.plus.com
==================================
"language … began with half-musical unanalysed expressions
for individual beings and events."
[Otto Jespersen, Progress in Language, 1895]
Messages in this topic (5)
________________________________________________________________________
3c. Re: Loglan[g] VS Natlang
Posted by: "Leonardo Castro" [email protected]
Date: Fri Jan 18, 2013 5:34 am ((PST))
The only advantage I see is in poetry.
Até mais!
Leonardo
2013/1/18 Mathieu Roy <[email protected]>:
> What are the advantages of speaking a less logical language (a language with
> grammar rules with a lot of exceptions, a lot of words with ambiguity, etc.)?
>
> -Mat
Messages in this topic (5)
________________________________________________________________________
3d. Re: Loglan[g] VS Natlang
Posted by: "Allison Swenson" [email protected]
Date: Fri Jan 18, 2013 5:42 am ((PST))
The flippant answer is that it's a whole lot more interesting.
The less flippant answers I can think of is that sometimes ambiguity is
itself a desired feature in language. Ambiguity allows one to decieve
without telling untruths, for example. It helps people save face, because
they aren't forced to reveal their motives or opinions. It allows for
clever wordplay and subtle references (which I suppose goes along with
Leonardo's "poetry" response).
Actually, though, I suppose you could lie quite easily in a logical
language. There's not really any part of natural language that *forces* us
to lie (or even be ambiguous), is there? We simply choose to do it. So we
could choose to lie in a loglang as well. Still couldn't decieve without
lying, though.
On Fri, Jan 18, 2013 at 8:34 AM, Leonardo Castro <[email protected]>wrote:
> The only advantage I see is in poetry.
>
> Até mais!
>
> Leonardo
>
>
> 2013/1/18 Mathieu Roy <[email protected]>:
> > What are the advantages of speaking a less logical language (a
> language with grammar rules with a lot of exceptions, a lot of words with
> ambiguity, etc.)?
> >
> > -Mat
>
Messages in this topic (5)
________________________________________________________________________
3e. Re: Loglan[g] VS Natlang
Posted by: "Jim Henry" [email protected]
Date: Fri Jan 18, 2013 8:27 am ((PST))
On Fri, Jan 18, 2013 at 6:27 AM, Mathieu Roy <[email protected]> wrote:
> What are the advantages of speaking a less logical language (a language with
> grammar rules with a lot of exceptions, a lot of words with ambiguity, etc.)?
If the costs of switching languages were zero, and the only difference
between natlangs and loglangs were the regularity of the grammar and
the polysemy of the words in the lexicon, then there might be very
little advantage in sticking with messy, irregular natlangs. Some
other posters on the thread have mentioned poetry; it's possible to
write poetry (and do other forms of wordplay) in an unnaturally
regular and monosemous conlang (the many volumes of poetry published
in Esperanto[*] are proof of that), but I'll concede for the sake of
argument that it's somehwat more difficult than in the the typical
natlang.
But the costs of switching languages, or even adding an additional
language to the existing mix, are pretty high; and most loglangs (or
engelangs more generally) differ from natlangs in many other ways than
regularity and monosemy. Many of them, including the best known
examples Loglan and Lojban, aim at perfect syntactic unambiguity, and
have other features which render them much more difficult to learn
than most other languages, if not entirely unlearnable.
[*] -- Esperanto isn't a loglang or engelang in the strict sense, nor
is it perfectly unambiguous, but I'd say it's less ambiguous than the
natlangs I'm most familiar with in both syntax and lexicon. Wordplay
in Esperanto works in at least two ways: using words that sound
similar to other words (this method is also available in most
engelangs, I reckon), and words which are phonologically identical to
other words but have a different parse (this is unavailable in
engelangs with self-segregating morphology, which I think is most of
them).
--
Jim Henry
http://www.pobox.com/~jimhenry/
http://www.jimhenrymedicaltrust.org
Messages in this topic (5)
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
4.1. Re: Word Limit
Posted by: "Matthew Martin" [email protected]
Date: Fri Jan 18, 2013 6:22 am ((PST))
Good points, I'll address a few.
> Having a closed class of content words is a downright anomalous property for
> a _language_ to have.
Languages where the set of verbs stems is closed do happen, in fact I posted
the link to the paper on this mailing list recently.
Well, we have a few levels of closed-ness and in conlanging, even if you are
naturalistic, they are difficult to avoid.
The Murfs are an imaginary people created by me. They live in an imaginary
world where they coin words when they feel like it. The imaginary language has
an open lexicon.
I sell the Murfs in plush form with a dictionary and license attached, which
says I will sue anyone who coins a word. My legions of Murf fans have forums
and mailing lists which shout down any attempt to coin a new word. The fandom
lexicon is closed for legal and social reasons among fans. The lexicon is open
with respect to me because I can coin words when the whim strikes.
A thousand years pass, and I'm dead, all the original fans are dead. Now it is
just a few scholar who study the Murf language as an artifact of 20th century
culture. Is the lexicon open or closed? Well, depends on who ever is using
now, they no long have any social or legal restrictions. This sort of is like
coining new words for sumerian. I think linguists would be reluctant to say
that the newly coined words were part of the language and coining new words is
on a the slope to a new language. This sort of closedness is the fate of all
conlangs and natural languages after they die.
Alternatively I could have created something that doesn't have imaginary people
and isn't on a naturalistic design methodology, and the designer states: the
set of content words is closed. This sort of closedness has some interesting
properties already mentioned and they are not interesting for their similarity
to Elvish or human languages.
>I'm not conlanging for an audience so it doesn't especially rise to be a
>concern
I see this so often I need a name for it and I've been calling it the
solipsistic methodology. In the solipsistic methodology, there really isn't
anything outside of the conlanger's desires that matters, which makes asking
questions on a mailing list a sort of a strange behavior. I can only assume
the OP asked the question because the answer has ramifications and a standard
of truth that exists outside of his own mind. The truth value properties about
statements about solipsists language exist only in his own head so why should
that person ask questions? The only answer in a solipsist methodology would
ever would be, well, "How do you feel about it? Really? That is correct."
Anyhow, I encourage everyone to follow their joy, including solipsistic
methodologies, I'm just a spectator here.
re: lexically closed vs derivationally open
This comes down to what one calls a word/lexeme or what have you. Even in toki
pona, (and Greek and English!) there are phrases which behave like words but
are clearly made up of phrases, like chemin-de-fer, jack-in-the-box, and the
origin of goodbye, (god be with you), so even if the set of morphemes (bound
and/or unbound) is closed, you can still make new things that pass a lot of the
tests one might imagine for wordhood (e.g. does it take plural form, can it be
split apart w/o changing meaning, does the location of accent change, etc)
re: language academy
Yes, this is a good idea, I think more conlang writers should include this sort
of direction to fans because the lack of it is part of what prevents fandom in
the first place. But to get to that, they will have to move past the solipsism,
the "get-off-my-lawn", "get-out-of-my-sandbox" state of mind. But like I said,
if that is what makes them happy, I don't want to be the one to try to push
them out of that.
Matthew Martin
Messages in this topic (50)
________________________________________________________________________
4.2. Re: Word Limit
Posted by: "Alex Fink" [email protected]
Date: Fri Jan 18, 2013 7:38 am ((PST))
On Fri, 18 Jan 2013 09:22:11 -0500, Matthew Martin
<[email protected]> wrote:
>Good points, I'll address a few.
>
>> Having a closed class of content words is a downright anomalous property for
>> a _language_ to have.
>Languages where the set of verbs stems is closed do happen, in fact I posted
>the link to the paper on this mailing list recently.
Mhmm, but this is a much less drastic thing, just a redistribution of the
semantic workload that goes to each part of speech. If I speak such a language
and I want to borrow a verb from another language, all I need to do is borrow
its nominalisation and construe that with one of the light verbs I already
have: don't borrow "converse", borrow "conversation" and then say "do
conversation" where "do" is native. (It doesn't have a nominalisation?
Alright, borrow a finite form of the verb as a noun if you have to! Lexical
classes are not sacrosanct.)
>The Murfs are an imaginary people created by me. [...]
>A thousand years pass, and I'm dead, all the original fans are dead. Now it is
>just a few scholar who study the Murf language as an artifact of 20th century
>culture. Is the lexicon open or closed? Well, depends on who ever is using
>now, they no long have any social or legal restrictions. This sort of is like
>coining new words for sumerian. I think linguists would be reluctant to say
>that the newly coined words were part of the language and coining new words is
>on a the slope to a new language. This sort of closedness is the fate of all
>conlangs and natural languages after they die.
Sure, no more than an archaeologist would say "I don't know what the
Kreuzdellekeramik people used for long-distance transport, though it seems they
had something; so let's just say they used rocket unicorns". At least not in a
professional role. In their private or fannish imaginings, they totally might
-- that's the SCA for you, reenacting the Middle Ages "as they ought to have
been".
>>I'm not conlanging for an audience so it doesn't especially rise to be a
>>concern
>I see this so often I need a name for it
It's no accident, I think, that conlanging is the secret vice! Tolkien comes
stirringly to its defence:
| The man next to me said suddenly in a dreamy voice: 'Yes, I think I shall
| express the accusative case by a prefix!' A memorable remark!
| ...Just consider the splendour of the words! '*I* shall express the
| accusative case.' Magnificent! Not 'it is expressed', nor even the more
| shambling 'it is sometimes expressed', nor the grim 'you must learn how
| it is expressed'. What a pondering of alternatives within one's choice
| before the final decision in favour of the daring and unusual prefix, so
| personal, so attractive; the final solution of some element in a design
| that had hitherto proved refractory. Here were no base considerations of
| the 'practical', the easiest for the 'modern mind', or for the million --
| only a question of taste, a satisfaction of a personal pleasure, a
| private sense of fitness.
>and I've been calling it the solipsistic methodology. In the solipsistic
>methodology, there really isn't anything outside of the conlanger's desires
>that matters, which makes asking questions on a mailing list a sort of a
>strange behavior. I can only assume the OP asked the question because the
>answer has ramifications and a standard of truth that exists outside of his
>own mind.
That's not at all a contradiction! The conlanger's desires might be to achieve
goals which are perfectly well defined, but that doesn't mean they have at the
ready all the data to assess whether they're meeting those goals.
With my strong-naturalist hat on, for instance, I'd like to be able to
(theoretically) make a whole planet's worth of languages whose distributions of
properties match the natural distributions I see on earth. (This is admittedly
stronger than most.) But how does it follow that I should be expected to knòw
that that means only about a tenth of them should contain [T], or whatnot?
Or the conlanger's desires may be to do something less well defined: e.g. in my
UNLWS, the goal is to make the most native use possible of a two-dimensional
writing surface, but what are the precise implications of that? Perhaps their
desires are only "do something I find interesting", "do something which fits my
conculture". But they can use help brainstorming for what would achieve such a
goal nonetheless.
>re: lexically closed vs derivationally open
>This comes down to what one calls a word/lexeme or what have you. Even in toki
>pona, (and Greek and English!) there are phrases which behave like words but
>are clearly made up of phrases, like chemin-de-fer, jack-in-the-box, and the
>origin of goodbye, (god be with you), so even if the set of morphemes (bound
>and/or unbound) is closed, you can still make new things that pass a lot of
>the tests one might imagine for wordhood (e.g. does it take plural form, can
>it be split apart w/o changing meaning, does the location of accent change,
>etc)
Quite true. The association between the word and the lexical item is too
strong in the minds of most (and I don't mean to restrict to people who know
what "lexical item" is!). Nothing's wrong with multi-word lexical items, or on
the other side of the coin with sub-word ones.
>re: language academy
>Yes, this is a good idea, I think more conlang writers should include this
>sort of direction to fans because the lack of it is part of what prevents
>fandom in the first place.
I have what you would perhaps consider a more pessimistic view (or is it just
realistic?): there seems to be no rèason for potential fans to become
interested in 99.9% of conlangs. The ones which don't come with a major media
franchise attached don't seem to have a hope. On the other side, the ones
which _do_ come with a major media franchise get their fans whether or not the
conlang is any good at all. (For instance, I was recently saddened to see
someone asking on Google+ about Mando'a, the language of the Mandalorian
culture, for which they're part of a group into creating artifacts and whatnot.
Mando'a is noobish in every way.)
Alex
Messages in this topic (50)
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
5a. Re: Romanization: digraphs vs. diacritics
Posted by: "Padraic Brown" [email protected]
Date: Fri Jan 18, 2013 6:59 am ((PST))
--- On Thu, 1/17/13, Herman Miller <[email protected]> wrote:
> In my normal Romanization of Tirelat
> (and other recent languages), I tend to use diacritics so
> that each phoneme of the language is represented by a single
> letter. E.g. [...]
>
> But recently I've been working on a map of the world, with
> lots of tentative names for places where I don't even know
> what languages are spoken. I decided to use a consistent
> spelling for all place names, rather than trying to figure
> out the phonology for all the languages ahead of time. E.g.,
> there's a name "Lanyamets", but I don't have a clue whether
> "ny" represents two phonemes /nj/ or a single phoneme /ɲ/
> in whatever language is spoken there, or whether "ts" is
> considered as one or two phonemes.
You don't necessarily need to know, either. Just keep in the back of your
mind who the cartographer is: if it's the semi-omniscient you, then you
will at least have a clue that the NY is something to consider when it
comes to making the language that goes with that country. If the map was
drawn from the perspective of a Tirelatian cartographer, then I'd suggest
that the names will be in good Tirelat orthography, but perhaps mangled
with respect to their native names, e.g., Bangkok v. Krung Thep.
I tend to make maps from the semi-omniscient perspective, and thus place
names will be more or less native in form. When I make maps from the
perspective of one country or another, the names might be different, being
in the native language of the cartographer, not the people depicted in the
map.
Padraic
Messages in this topic (3)
________________________________________________________________________
5b. Re: Romanization: digraphs vs. diacritics
Posted by: "Alex Fink" [email protected]
Date: Fri Jan 18, 2013 7:43 am ((PST))
On Fri, 18 Jan 2013 06:59:44 -0800, Padraic Brown <[email protected]> wrote:
>--- On Thu, 1/17/13, Herman Miller <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>> In my normal Romanization of Tirelat
>> (and other recent languages), I tend to use diacritics so
>> that each phoneme of the language is represented by a single
>> letter. E.g. [...]
>>
>> But recently I've been working on a map of the world, with
>> lots of tentative names for places where I don't even know
>> what languages are spoken. I decided to use a consistent
>> spelling for all place names, rather than trying to figure
>> out the phonology for all the languages ahead of time. E.g.,
>> there's a name "Lanyamets", but I don't have a clue whether
>> "ny" represents two phonemes /nj/ or a single phoneme /ɲ/
>> in whatever language is spoken there, or whether "ts" is
>> considered as one or two phonemes.
>
>You don't necessarily need to know, either. Just keep in the back of your
>mind who the cartographer is: if it's the semi-omniscient you, then you
>will at least have a clue that the NY is something to consider when it
>comes to making the language that goes with that country. If the map was
>drawn from the perspective of a Tirelatian cartographer, then I'd suggest
>that the names will be in good Tirelat orthography, but perhaps mangled
>with respect to their native names, e.g., Bangkok v. Krung Thep.
Ah, this was going to be my question exactly, too! There seems to be a lot of
linguistic uniformity among the names on your map. I was wondering if it was
because they'd all been Tirelatized, but Tirelat doesn't seem to have e.g. any
‹ö› or ‹ü›. But e.g. there are (by Earthly standards) quite a lot of voiced
fricatives; there's scarcely any indication of tone (have you just dropped
it?); ...
Alex
Messages in this topic (3)
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
6. Vulcan Language (was: Loglan VS Natlang)
Posted by: "George Corley" [email protected]
Date: Fri Jan 18, 2013 7:17 am ((PST))
On Fri, Jan 18, 2013 at 8:44 AM, Padraic Brown <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> > > I discussed this elsewhere and those who know more about Star Trek than
> > > me seem to be saying that there is too much already written about
> > > Vulcans and their space elvish language,
> >
> > But the Vulcans of Star Trek do NOT exist.
>
> True, and he didn't say they actually exist, but even if they did, there
> would be no reason to suppose they must speak a logical language (such as
> Lojban). We know just enough about Star Trek Vulcan culture, physiology
> and psychology to know that they are not so different from us: they are
> not logical by nature, but rather by long and arduous training. It may
> very well be that those Vulcans who are deepest in the art of logic use
> some kind of loglang as a second language; but I'd doubt that such a beast
> would be their cradle language.
>
We really don't have any info on the Vulcan language. As far as I know,
there are only a few lines in the language, developed by Mark Okrand to
match the mouth movements of the scene as performed in English. I'm sure
people have analyzed that small bit of data quite thoroughly, but I doubt
we'll see more of Vulcan language later on.
> Within the ST universe, we also know that Romulans and Vulcans are very
> close (if not identical) physiologically and they have a shared history.
> It would stand to reason that the basic nature of the Vulcan language(s)
> is more like that of the Romulans, barring some sort of radical purge.
It is well-established and often stated that the Romulan and Vulcan
languages are similar, so no purge. Probably both races speak some
descendant of a language that existed before the split, which would in turn
be at least a descendant of a language that existed before the Vulcans
learned to suppress their emotions. Certainly such a language would be
naturally evolved.
> > > but I think real world Vulcans would either convert their natural
> > > language to a loglan or write one from scratch.
>
> They might very well do the latter.
That would be very interesting to explore. I've noticed that as Star Trek
went on Vulcan Logic became less a rationalist ideology and more of a
religion of sorts. Vulcans always did have incorrect or unusual ideas as
to what was "logical" (look up the "Straw Vulcan" trope), and as their
culture got fleshed out through the decades with rituals and mythology it
seems more and more that Vulcan Logic is very dogmatic and is revered in a
way that seems quite religious.
As such, it's hard to predict what they would do. Would they decide that
the "logical" course of action would be to keep their own language, just
out of pure pragmatism? Would they iron out some irregularities and be
done with it? Or would the priesthood develop a loglang for themselves?
Lots of interesting questions that we, unfortunately, can't answer, since
none of us get paid by Paramount to write about Vulcans.
Messages in this topic (1)
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
7. THEORY: Practical limit of inflection complexity?
Posted by: "Leonardo Castro" [email protected]
Date: Fri Jan 18, 2013 7:38 am ((PST))
I have noticed that many languages have some inflections that are not
really used in everyday speech, being substituted with others (what
reduces the total number of inflection) or with more analytical
structures.
Do you think there is a limit of the number of word inflection people
on the streets can deal with?
Até mais!
Leonardo
Messages in this topic (1)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Yahoo! Groups Links
<*> To visit your group on the web, go to:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/conlang/
<*> Your email settings:
Digest Email | Traditional
<*> To change settings online go to:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/conlang/join
(Yahoo! ID required)
<*> To change settings via email:
[email protected]
[email protected]
<*> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
[email protected]
<*> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to:
http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
------------------------------------------------------------------------
