Hola Marcos, Mariano, a todos.
Es curioso que se intuya que el primer lenguaje humano fue gestual y además que se conozca que el último lenguaje humano aparecido (en Nicaragua, y no ideolinguado :) sea también gestual, tal como se reportó aquí en su día: http://espanol.groups.yahoo.com/group/ideolengua/message/4672? var=1&l=1 http://www.indiana.edu/~langacq/E105/Nicaragua.html http://www.nytimes.com/library/magazine/home/19991024mag-sign- language.html http://www.mail-archive.com/ideolengua@gruposyahoo.com/msg00319.html Respecto a la lengua de signos (¿o de señas?) pienso que es una lástima que no se consensuase en su día, pues, según se refiere, " tienen estructuras gramaticales perfectamente definidas, e independientes de las lenguas orales con las que cohabitan". Tal vez no hubiera sido muy difícil conseguir que esas estructuras fuesen más compartidas, consiguiéndose así una auxilengua gestual. Parece que el camino que se ha seguido ha sido secesionista y no unionista: http://es.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lengua_de_se%C3%B1as_espa%C3%B1ola http://es.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lengua_de_signos_catalana http://es.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lengua_de_signos_valenciana Una auxilengua de señas tal vez no fuese una utopía tras haberse logrado una Lengua de Señas Americana, usada en Canada, México y USA, englobando por tanto al Español y al Inglés. Puestos a construir una lengua para minimizar una minusvalía ¿no hubiera sido posible una lengua gestual que facilitara el entendimiento a mayor escala? Ello parece aún más viable al constatar que todas tienden a ser lenguas analíticas, con poca morfología. Respecto a la lengua de señas de Omnial, confío en documentarme sobre ella en mi próxima visita a la microisla. Saludos muy cordiales y feliz veran(o/eo), o inviern(o/ación)( con afecto para Lin). Job --- En ideolengua@gruposyahoo.com, "grentey" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> escribió: > > Hola Mariano, y a todos. > > Sí, es muy posible, como dices, que el lenguaje escrito sea la vuelta > a los origenes del lenguaje, la vuelta a una codificación visual. > > > Y así en cierta forma se podría considerar a la escritura > como "lenguaje gestual con vocación de permanencia". > > > De hecho los gestos son una parte fundamental de la expresividad y no > un mero adorno del lenguage fonemico, y en el caso de mi mujer tan > fundamental, incluso conduciendo, que cuando para reafirmar su > discurso suelta una mano (hasta ahora nunca las dos...toquemos > madera) del volante provoca paradojicamente que me olvide de la > semiologia y ya solo piense en la dinamica de solidos :). Y esó de > forma repetida hace una hora escasa. > > > Recuerdo que se reporto aqui que el unico lenguaje humano del que hay > constancia de su fecha de nacimiento es gestual y surgio en > Centroamerica no hace mucho. > > > Dios no quiera que se pueda confirmar algun dia, pero probablemente > un grupo de cachorros humanos desarrollarian, sin contacto cultural > previo, un lenguaje gestual antes que fonemico para comunicarse. > > > Lo que me desconcierta es que al parecer la universalidad de > la "simbologia gestual espontanea", no es completa y asi lo que > consideramos negar con la cabeza es en algunas culturas equivalente a > la afirmación. > > > ¿Y la universalidad de la necesidad de escribir, de hacer perdurar > los gestos mediante la escritura? > > > > Saludos. > > > > Marcos > --- En ideolengua@gruposyahoo.com, Mariano Jc De Vierna Carles- Tolrá > <mno.v.ct@> escribió: > > > > > > Marcos. Todos. Hola. > > > > Me parece un artículo interesante. En cuanto a la teoría de que en > el > > lenguaje primero fueron los gestos... quizá expresable con primero > fue "la > > codificación en gestos" o "la formalización de signos comunicativos > en > > gestos" resulta atractivo aceptarla porque parece más fácil hacer > gestos que > > articular sonidos fonémicos... o mejor, la teoría de que en el > desarrollo > > del lenguaje las primeras etapas fueron gestuales y luego se > traslado y > > siguió avanzando su desarrollo en los sonidos, concuerda con el > hecho > > biológico de que en el ser humano la capacidad visual es mayor que > la > > capacidad auditiva. De hecho, en la evolución del lenguaje el > siguiente paso > > fue "devolver a la capacidad visual su papel primordial" inventando > las > > escrituras. Deseo discutir más el asunto y relacionar este asunto > con otros > > aspectos de la evolución del lenguaje. > > > > Desde mi punto de vista, la manera de evolucionar el lenguaje, está > más > > probada en el caso de la escritura. Me parece que hay suficiente > evidencia > > para afirmar que la escritura tiene su origen en la pintura. Esto > es la > > generación de la escritura es a partir de representaciones visuales > que > > representan objetos y hechos que devienen convencionales y luego > > gradualmente estas formas figurativas primitivas se estilizan y > vuelven > > abstractas, porque se adapta el uso de estas formas figurativas > primitivas > > mediante asociaciones caprichosas con el fin de expresar lo > inexpresable. > > (Por ejemplo, palabras como "nada", "vacío" o "espacio" no expresan > una > > realidad, ya que lo expresado no es "algo"). > > > > Por ejemplo, pinturas prehistóricas como las de Altamira parecen > ser > > meramente figurativas, obra de un artista, pero pinturas como las > de los > > aborígenes australianos no son meramente figurativas, sino que > tienen un > > valor social, pues narran historias y pertenencen a cada etnia como > seña de > > identidad (de hecho consideran una infracción que una persona de > otra etnia > > haga uso de las figuras que identifican a la propia). > > > > Otro ejemplo, es quizá la escritura jeroglífica, la cual está en el > origen > > del alfabeto fenicio. > > > > Y, un ejemplo excelente de esto quizá sea la escritura china, pues > hace poco > > se ha leído la noticia del hallazgo de grabados figurativos > prehistóricos de > > hace unos 8000 años en Damaidi los cuales guardan ya semejanzas > relevantes > > con algunos caracteres chinos primitivos. La escritura china es una > sistema > > gráfico de morfemas, pues la unidad del lenguaje más relevantemente > > representada en la escritura china es el morfema, quizá sea > aceptable > > denominarla morfemario. > > > > No se conoce caso alguno de un alfabeto que haya meramente surgido - > o que > > haya sido "meramente" inventado-, toda creación de alfabetos -y > también de > > abugidas, abjads, silabarios, morfemarios- ha ido precedida de una > escritura > > pictográfica o logográfica de la que tomó los caracteres o a partir > de la > > cual evolucionó, o, si no, han sido precedidos de otros alfabetos > que fueron > > precedidos de alguna escritura pictográfica o logográfica (por > ejemplo, el > > hangul y los numerosos sistemas de escritura inventados en África > ocurren ya > > en el contexto de la existencia de otros sistemas de escritura > conocidos por > > sus creadores). > > Aún así, cuando se inventan los alfabetos, ajiads o silabarios > suele ocurrir > > que los sistemas pictográficos son abandonados, dejando las formas > menos > > abstractas en favor de las más abstractas. > > > > Con esto quiero apoyar la teoría de que en el desarrollo y la > evolución del > > lenguaje las expresiones figurativas preceden a las expresiones > abstractas. > > Lo que ocurre quizá es lo siguiente, un ser humano tiene un > comportamiento > > realizando unos movimientos que percibe en sí y en los demás, si > uno de esos > > movimientos y, o, comportamientos, lo realiza enfatizándolo resulta > extraño > > y permite interpretarlo como un acto de comunicación. Así, un gesto > es un > > acto enfático -un acto ostensivo- que puede comunicar "algo". Esto > puede > > hacerse con movimientos y comportamientos de cualquier tipo de > percepción, > > sea visual, sonora, tactil, etcétera, pero, en el ser humano > prevalece la > > visión sobre los otros sentidos, lo cual propicia que cualquier > innovación > > cultural asociada a la percepción se inicie en lo visual. Por otro > lado los > > impulsos de la mente se expresan mejor mediante signos mínimos, > como son los > > fonemas, pero, también, las letras de los alfabetos o los > logogramas como > > los del chino, los signos del lenguaje de signos, los caracteres > del > > Braille, etcétera. > > > > Así, en el lenguaje, pienso que, en efecto, como propone esta > teoría, quizá > > algunos gestos devinieron en formas de signos convencionales, antes > de que > > esto ocurriera con expresiones sonoras, porque lo visual en el ser > humano > > prevalece sobre lo auditivo, sin embargo, en cuanto el ser humano > aprendió a > > emitir fonemas esto tomaron el relevo en el desarrollo del > lenguaje, por > > resultar mucho más apropiado para la mente o el cerebro humano. Sin > embargo, > > posteriormente en la evolución encontramos una expresión visual del > lenguaje > > fonémico, que es la escritura y, así, historicamente las tornas se > vuelven > > muy fuertes a favor de la evolución visual del lenguaje con la > invención del > > papel, de la imprenta y actualmente de internet. El lenguaje humano > no es un > > hecho "meramente" oral, ciertamente, y quizá ni siquiera es un > hecho > > "predominantemente" oral sino que es visual antes que auditivo, y > esto sí, > > el lenguaje humano es, auditivo antes que tactil... claro, que, > solamente, > > debido a las limitaciones de lo tactil en cuanto medio de > comunicación a > > distancia. > > > > Gracias. > > > > Y un saludo cordial, > > mariano > > ----- Original Message ----- > > From: grentey > > To: ideolengua@gruposyahoo.com > > Sent: Wednesday, June 06, 2007 11:24 AM > > Subject: [ideoL] ¿Fue antes el lenguage de signos que el de > sonidos, incluso > > en humanos? > > > > > > Eso es lo que se da a entender ahí: > > > > http://www.laflecha.net/canales/comunicacion/noticias/un-estudio- > > revela-que-el-lenguaje-comenzo-con-gestos-antes-que-con-sonidos/ > > > > Un estudio revela que el lenguaje comenzó con gestos antes que con > > sonidos. > > > > Ciertos primates usan en su comunicación manos y pies de manera más > > flexible que la expresión facial y la vocalización, lo que respalda > > la teoría de que el lenguaje humano comenzó con gestos, revela un > > estudio divulgado por la revista "Proceedings of the National > Academy > > of Sciences". 02 May 2007, 09:40 | Fuente: AGENCIA EFE > > > > En un investigación con chimpancés y bonobos (un pequeño chimpancé > > del Congo), científicos del Centro Nacional Yerkes para la > > Investigación de Primates en Atlanta (Georgia) distinguieron 31 > > gestos manuales y 18 faciales de esos animales. > > > > Al analizarlos, determinaron que ambas especies usaban señales > > faciales y vocales de manera simultánea. Sin embargo, no ocurría lo > > mismo con los gestos manuales. > > > > Por el contrario, los científicos descubrieron que en esas especies > > los gestos estaban menos vinculados a una emoción en particular y, > > por lo tanto, servían una función adaptable (según las > > circunstancias, constituyendo por tanto un lenguaje con > > trasfondo "cultural" y no instintivo). > > > > Como ejemplo, manifiestan que un gesto puede indicar un mensaje > > diferente según el contexto social en el que se le utilice. > > > > "Un chimpancé puede mostrar la mano extendida a otro como señal de > > respaldo. Ese mismo gesto hacia quien se está alimentando puede > > indicar el deseo de que comparta su comida", señaló Amy Pollick, > > miembro del equipo de investigadores. > > > > "Sin embargo, un aullido es la respuesta típica de las víctimas de > > intimidación, amenaza o ataque. Esto se aplica tanto a bonobos como > a > > chimpancés y sugiere que la vocalización no varía", dijo Pollick en > > el informe sobre la investigación. > > > > Según el estudio, al analizar diversos tipos de comunicación en > > especies estrechamente vinculadas, los investigadores pueden > > determinar su antigüedad compartida. > > > > Por otra parte, según agregan los científicos, se sabe que los > gestos > > son evolutivamente más recientes que las expresiones faciales y las > > vocalizaciones, como lo demuestra su presencia en los primates > > mayores, entre ellos los seres humanos, pero no así en los monos. > > > > Según Pollick, un gesto común de bonobos y chimpancés así como de > los > > seres humanos posiblemente haya sido utilizado por su último > ancestro > > común. > > > > "Un buen ejemplo de gesto compartido es el de la mano abierta, que > > usan los primates y el hombre. Ese gesto puede usarse para pedir > > alimento, si lo hay, y también para solicitar ayuda, apoyo, o > dinero. > > Su significado depende del contexto", afirmó Frans de Waal, otro de > > los científicos que participó en el estudio. > > > > Los investigadores también sugieren que los bonobos y los chimpancés > > combinan los gestos con las expresiones faciales y la vocalización > > para comunicar un mensaje. > > > > "Aunque los chimpancés producen más de estas combinaciones, los > > bonobos responden a ellas con más frecuencia. Este descubrimiento > > sugiere que el bonobo es un mejor modelo de la comunicación > simbólica > > entre nuestros primeros ancestros", señaló Pollick. > > > > ¿ Que os parece ? > > > > Marcos > > > http://listserv.linguistlist.org/archives/ideolengua.html http://listserv.brown.edu/archives/cgi-bin/wa?A0=CONLANG http://listserv.brown.edu/archives/cgi-bin/wa?A0=AUXLANG http://omnial.tripod.com/abc http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/English_grammar http://es.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gram%C3%A1tica_del_espa%C3%B1ol http://listserv.linguistlist.org/cgi-bin/wa? A2=ind0612c&L=ideolengua&D=1&F=&S=&P=869 http://www.simpsonizeme.com/# http://dir.yahoo.com/Social_Science/Linguistics_and_Human_Languages/? o=a http://listserv.linguistlist.org/cgi-bin/wa? A2=ind0701a&L=ideolengua&D=1&F=&S=&P=91 http://www.mail-archive.com/ideolengua@gruposyahoo.com/msg00985.html http://www.mail-archive.com/ideolengua@gruposyahoo.com/msg00902.html http://www.mail-archive.com/ideolengua@gruposyahoo.com/msg01162.html http://www.mail-archive.com/ideolengua@gruposyahoo.com/msg01238.html http://www.mail-archive.com/ideolengua@gruposyahoo.com/msg00900.html http://www.mail-archive.com/ideolengua@gruposyahoo.com/msg01221.html http://www.softcatala.com/traductor http://www.yourdictionary.com/ahd/a/a0433600.html http://www.etymonline.com/ http://ehl.santafe.edu/cgi-bin/query.cgi? root=config&morpho=0&basename=/data/ie/piet http://www.google.com/language_tools?hl=es http://www.humanitas-international.org/newstran/more-trans.htm http://www.chino-china.com/herramientas/pinyin.html http://cumincad.scix.net/cgi-bin/works/BrowseAZ?name=titles http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Language_localization#Spanish_language_lo calisation http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/Category:1000_English_basic_words http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/Wiktionary:Frequency_lists/Spanish1000 http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/Wiktionary:Frequency_lists http://www.langmaker.com/db/Langmaker:Resources http://filoblogos.blogspot.com/ http://omnial.tripod.com/omnialmiscelane http://www.google.es/search?q=omnial&ie=utf-8&oe=utf- 8&rls=org.mozilla:en-US:official&client=firefox-a http://es.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_Discusi%C3%B3n% 3ABibliotecarios&diff=6239239&oldid=6239092 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators#Administrator_ab use http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Visitante http://es.wikipedia.org/wiki/Usuario_Discusi%C3% B3n:Chlewey/Archivo_2007-05_a_06#Etolog.C3.ADa http://es.wikipedia.org/wiki/Usuario_Discusi%C3% B3n:Chlewey/Archivo/Etolog%C3%ADa http://es.wikipedia.org/wiki/Usuario_Discusi%C3% B3n:Chlewey/Archivo_2007-05_a_06#Etolog.C3.ADa_y_etiolog.C3.ADa http://en.citizendium.org/wiki/Main_Page http://es.wikipedia.org/wiki/Usuario_Discusi%C3% B3n:Chlewey/Archivo_2007-05_a_06#Encuesta http://es.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Encuestas/2007/Consultas_de_des bibliotecarizaci%C3%B3n http://es.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Encuestas/2007/Consultas_de_des bibliotecarizaci%C3%B3n_%28segunda_vuelta%29 Grammar: http://es.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia% 3AConsultas_de_borrado%2FOmnial&diff=6024516&oldid=6020809 Dict: http://es.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia% 3AConsultas_de_borrado%2FOmnial&diff=6069743&oldid=6069708 Fwd: Re: Omnial text and the Spanish Wikipedia Hello Padraic Thank you very much for explaining your new and valorous point of view about the Omnial language, with a different and competent perspective. It has been a great help for us. Thank you very much again and continue conlanging! Best regards. Job --- In [EMAIL PROTECTED], Padraic Brown <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > --- JoB <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > Hello Padraic > > > > > > >--- In [EMAIL PROTECTED], Padraic Brown > > <elemtilas@> >wrote: > > > > > > --- JoB <elx2003@> wrote: > > > > > > > Presumably, I can also marteletixar as well: a most > > > instructive and excellent treatise on hypersuffixation > > > in > > > Omnial! You proved my point admirably. > > > > > > I think that example is not about hypersuffixation > > because in Omnial > > almost always the use of suffix is optional and not > > obligatory. > > I understand that the bits like -et- and -ix- are > "optional", but they're only optional in that to remove > them changes the meaning of the word! There's a difference > between martelietixar and martelar! Not so "optional", > after all. > > > > Neither is here multisuffixation because with only two > > suffixes for the verb, and other two for the noun, we can > > reach varied meanings. > > > > You learned to use these four Omnial suffixes in a > > combination form > > without previous explanation of their mechanism. > > Well, you told me what they mean and I applied that to a > known Omnial root. Not so difficult. That said, I'm not > complaining about the ease with which I created a suffixed > word; I'm just noting that hypersuffixation is something > Omnial suffers from! :) > > > > Then "marteletixar" is to use smoothly a little hammer > > and > > "brosotixar" is to use smoothly a "brosote", that is a > > big brush. > > > > That demonstrates that the using of them (et + ixar or ot > > + ixar) is > > very easy in Omnial language. > > If you give me some more suffixes, it will be just as easy > to stick them together. > > > > > Confusion is the bane of an auxlang. > > > > > > >. If you come out of a shop on a busy > > > street on Omnial Island and hail a gendarme asking him > > > "where's my biciklin?" And he'll look at you, sigh, and > > say > > > "You're bicikul is tied up over there..." > > > > > > > That's just my opinion on "subjective gender". > > > > > > Subjective gender is common in Spanish, not only in > > slang, without any > > confusion: "pero" (fruit) and "pera", but probably the > > "lexicovision" > > from Maryland is different to "lexicovision" from > > Alicante :) > > Spanish is a gendered language. I guess the lack of any > significant gender system in English has sort of biased me > against it (gender) as a sensible feature of an auxlang. > This variable gender assignment seems quite simply bizarre, > as far as auxlangs go! > > > > > > >This "law" is flawed, and no linguist in good > > conscience > > > > >would ever agree with it. Please show us how Spanish > > > > >grammar is actually "simpler" than Latin! > > > > > > > > > [snip] > > > [Spanish v. Latin complexity] > > > That's what _you_ say. But then again, _you_ speak > > Spanish > > > and had to learn Latin! ;) > > > > > > > I had no difficulty in switching to an inflected > > language. > > > Even then, Latin isn't a _pure_ infelcting language > > > > > > > My question addresses the _increasing_ complexity of > > > Spanish over Latin, while you had said "But I think the > > > morphology and syntax of Spanish is simpler as > > Latin..." > > > > > > I think is easier to use a preposition than using several > > declinations > > with several irregular morphemes. > > > > > > Examples: > > > > Amicum motus rosa vincit > > Amicus vincit consulum amici > > Cornu rosae vincit consul > > Vencit dies rosam consulis > > Mare diei cornu vencit > > Of course: your mother tongue is a prepositional one! I > have no problem in understanding or dealing with the > prepositionless sentences above. That is, such a system > makes as perfect a sense as one that relies on adpositions > (there's no good reason why the things _have_ to come > before their noun!). > > > > > > > We can see that the using of the only preposition > > (English "of" or > > Spanish "de") is replaced here by several morphemes (-us, > > ae, is, ei) > > and for a correct use of those morphemes it is necessary > > to make > > multiple groups of different nouns, each one with a > > different > > mechanism of word building. > > The switch has _increased_ confusion and _decreased_ > clarity: it's now no longer clear whether "de" is > possessive or ablative or something else, until you read > more closely. > > > > > > > > Thus you can see a language whose semantics and > > > vocabulary have become complex, does _not_ necessarily > > have > > > a simpler morphology or syntax. > > > > > Not always; and there are many languages of modern > > > societies that are equally complex (Spanish for > > example). > > > Spain is a first world country, yet it has an amazingly > > > complex verbal system, full of all kinds of tenses and > > > persons that English's very simple verb system lacks. > > > > > > > > But I think the change happens always according to the > > double Omnial > > theory ("Constant of linguistic difficulty for any > > language" and > > "Horror vacui of the primolingual brain organ") all the > > languages > > always change to become other languages more complicated > > in semantics, > > pragmatics and vocabulary, and simpler in morphology and > > syntax. > > But that was my point: this is _not_ actually the case! We > can see English moving from "simple" morphology to an > increasingly complex one. While we don't write them, we now > have all sorts of conjugated and inflected pronouns and > auxiliaries and nouns and adjectives that we didn't have > before! We now have, for example, adjectives and nouns and > pronouns that "inflect" for tense and number (that is, a > _verbal_ inflexion), a composite derived from the > amalgamation of a substantive with the copula. Not so > simple! > > > > > We hope, in the near future, to demonstrate that (after > > knowing the > > measure mode) and then this double Omnial theory will > > becomes a new > > linguistic law. :) > > Good luck! > > > > > >> So the languages of primitive societies (in some > > >> technological sense > > >> of primitive) are very complicated in the strict > > grammar > > >> (morphology > > >> and syntax). > > > > > Not always; and there are many languages of modern > > > societies that are equally complex (Spanish for > > example). > > > Spain is a first world country, yet it has an amazingly > > > complex verbal system, full of all kinds of tenses and > > > persons that English's very simple verb system lacks. > > > > > > But it happens that the majority of the Spanish verbal > > morphemes are > > not used nowadays, but they are learned in the school. > > > > The learning of this complex verbal system is useful to > > understand the > > texts of the past. > > It's always been the case that literature, philosophy and > other disciplines (typically, they are all _written_) tend > to require more specific forms of description than common > parlance. You can get by in English, for the most part, > with only the "present progressive" and "past progressive" > (what passes for your present and imperfect). In order to > write a decent thesis or work of literature, you'll need > command of other tenses and moods as well! > > > > I'm sorry to hear your organs are sclerosed. :( I think > > > there must be folks who are not so incapacitated. > > > > > > That is only a physiological process and for that reason > > it is not a > > pathologic problem. > > I'm still sorry your organs have sclerosed! Not everyone > suffers this predicament, as I've said, and I agree it is > to be hoped some means of desclerosifying your brains can > be devised some day! > > I do think there is also a psychological aspect to this > problem -- if you've convinced yourself that you can not > learn a language (for whatever reason), then you will > probably fail at learning one. I've heard theories similar > to yours, that adults lack the capacity to learn new > languages as easily as children. I just don't subscribe to > the idea. > > > > And indeed, is carried over into Spanish's ubiquitious > > > "de", the black hole into which Latin's genitive and > > > ablative fell! ;) > > > > > How so? An English speaker visiting Spain would assume, > > > upon seeing "Zara Home", that it is something in > > Catalan or > > > Spanish, not English! > > > > > > > > No problem. All weekends I see many English speakers > > buying diverse > > textile items at the Zara shops, without any kind of > > problem (at Zara > > home, Zara men, and Zara women Zarin and Zarul at the > > little island. I > > hope! > > What I mean is not that they'd have difficulties buying > cloth in such shops; just that they'd never consider "home" > to be an English word given the context of a shop sign in > Spain! > > > > > All the best for you and family, and like always, here > > rest a friend. > > And as always, the same to you! > > Padraic > > > > > > > Job > > > > > > > > > > > > > > --- In [EMAIL PROTECTED], Padraic Brown > > <elemtilas@> wrote: > > > > > > --- JoB <elx2003@> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > >To be honest, it's complexity makes it much _less_ > > > > useful > > > > > as an auxlang. The more I see of Omnial in your > > emails, > > > > the > > > > > less likely it is to fulfill the role of auxlang > > > > (unless, > > > > > like English, it is imposed via colonialism, > > economic > > > > > dominance and cultural ubiquity). > > > > > > > > > > > > >> 2. Fantasy > > > > > > > > >Omnial makes a fine artlang -- a work of fantasy. > > > > > > > > > > > > Exactly! The Omnial wants to be an artlang of a > > fantasy > > > > world (the > > > > Omnial island) > > > > > > Which it seems to be doing admirably. > > > > > > > but with an auxlang skin, which language > > > > is easier and > > > > useful, without losing the esthetical appearance. > > > > > > We don't agree on that. The more of Omnial I see, the > > less > > > I can see it as any kind of auxlang. > > > > > > > The Omnial is already an auxlang . at the Omnial > > > > island at its > > > > fantasy world. Conlanging is not a championship It's > > only > > > > a hedonist > > > > and pleasant hobby . then the Omnial can be auxlang > > and > > > > artlang > > > > simultaneously. > > > > > > I think that is a highly implausible story -- the > > auxlang > > > bit. Usually when an auxlang is found needful, the > > results > > > are "simple" languages, like pigins; Omnial is nowhere > > near > > > that kind of simplicity! > > > > > > > >It's like English, only the complexity lies in a > > > > different > > > > >location. > > > > > > > > Omnial is trying to be simpler and then poorer that > > any > > > > natural > > > > language, > > > > > > If so, it fails miserably! That's not a complaint, but > > > Omnial is by no means "simpler than" or "poorer than". > > It > > > has complexities which as we've discussed do _not_ > > mimic > > > the supposed simplicity of auxlangs. > > > > > > > having in its grammar only 8 points, and 8 > > > > columns in its > > > > heptalingual vocabulary, so it is easy for learning, > > even > > > > after the > > > > puberty when the primolingual brain organ is having > > > > several > > > > difficulty's problems with linguistic learning. > > > > > > I don't buy all that postpubertal business; but even if > > I > > > did, it wouldn't take long to realise that Omnial is > > the > > > simplest language a postpubertal language learner can > > > tackle! > > > > > > > >While you decry "hypersuffixation" in other > > > > >languages, here are good examples of it in Omnial. > > > > >Honestly, "-et-" and "-ix-" are not terribly useful. > > > > They > > > > >add unnecessary complexity which removes Omnial from > > any > > > > >sensible pretense to auxlangery and places it firmly > > in > > > > the > > > > >camp of the artlangs. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Sorry for my poor formation and expressivity in > > English. > > > > I never have > > > > spoken about "decry" (Dic =Express strong disapproval > > of; > > > > "We condemn > > > > the racism in South Africa".) for any other language. > > I > > > > never have > > > > spoken and never have written using that word. I > > don't > > > > like it > > > > ("decry") in linguistics. > > > > > > When you say "The new word building system of Omnial, > > with > > > a new solution to the problems of the reversibility snd > > > also of (or without) hipersuffixation..." you are > > decrying > > > hypersuffixation -- that is, you are condemning it as > > > problematic. It is an issue you find requires a > > solution. > > > > > > Also, I never said you _used_ the word "decry". I'm > > using > > > the word to characterise your reaction to > > > "hypersuffixation" and to contrast your negative > > attitude > > > towards it with examples of same from your own conlang. > > > > > > > I only have seen that Omnial has a different way in > > word > > > > building > > > > because in Omnial is possible the immediate > > derivation of > > > > verbs from > > > > adjectives and substantives, > > > > > > Honestly, this is a fairly common method of word > > building. > > > As I said, we do it in English regularly and > > frequently. > > > It's even garnered a catchy name: the "verbing of > > English". > > > Calvin and Hobbes (a cartoon), made the whole > > phenomenon a > > > matter of public record when Calvin said "Verbing > > weirds > > > language". > > > > > > [snipped redundancy] > > > > > > > The suffix ("-ixar", pronounced the x like sh, like > > > > Catalan and > > > > Galician languages) is only for verbs, so: > > > > > > > > Martelar ---> To use a hammer > > > > > > > > Martelixar (pr: marteli"sh"ar) --> To use, smoothly, > > a > > > > hammer. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > The suffix "ete" is only for substantives and > > > > adjectives, so: > > > > > > > > Martelete ---> A little hammer ---> Marteletar --> To > > use > > > > a little hammer. > > > > > > Presumably, I can also marteletixar as well: a most > > > instructive and excellent treatise on hypersuffixation > > in > > > Omnial! You proved my point admirably. > > > > > > > > > 3) The infinite number of correlatives and > > > > > interrogatives > > > > > > > in Omnial: > > > > > > > ki + any name + "-al" or "-im": --> "kisizal?" > > , > > > > > > > "kibusim?", > > > > > > > "kimodim?" etc. > > > > > > > > >They're still tedious and numerous! (I'm not > > > > complaining: > > > > >there are a lot in my own conlangs.) > > > > > > > > > > > > "De gustibus et coloribus no es disputandum", of > > course > > > > But in Omnial > > > > this words are absolutely not correlatives. These > > words > > > > are formed > > > > only with the common rules of Omnial word building > > (ex: > > > > always is used > > > > for possession the suffix "-al"). They are simple, > > > > regular and very > > > > useful compound words. > > > > > > Doesn't really matter how they're formed: they function > > as > > > correlatives and (like in my own conlangs) are of > > > sufficient number so as to be tedious! > > > > > > > >> > What is "subjective gender"? Gender is assigned > > > > based > > > > >> on the speaker's mood or perception of the word? > > > > >> > > > > >> > > > > >>> Exactly! > > > > > > > > >A neat feature for an artlang; a horrific fog for an > > > > >auxlang! If a word's gender changes because the > > speaker > > > > >feels like it should change, then there's no place > > for > > > > >common understanding between users of the language > > -- > > > > and > > > > >_that_ is what auxlangs are all about. > > > > > > > > >> The bike of a woman (a pink bike with a basket) > > --- > > > > Then > > > > >> anybody can > > > > >> name it "biciklin" : ) > > > > > > > > > > > > >So, if a man has a pink bike with a basket? > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > That sentence in Omnial is: > > > > "Un andre hava un biciklin" > > > > (if the speaker think the pink bike is more adequate > > for > > > > women). > > > > Or > > > > "Un andre hava un biciklul" > > > > (if the speaker think that bike is more adequate for > > > > men.) > > > > Or > > > > "Un andre hava un bicikle" > > > > (if the speaker does not want to speak about that > > aspect) > > > > > > Confusion is the bane of an auxlang. > > > > > > > All of this is true, because these morphemes are not > > > > obligatory > > > > morphemes. So its function is similar to the > > complements > > > > in our > > > > languages, since the Omnial want to be flexible and > > free > > > > simultaneously. > > > > > > > > Then using your words > > > > > > > > > > > > So, if a man has a woman shoe? > > > > > > > > -"biciklin" = bike for women (in opinion of speaker) > > > > woman's shoe = shoe for women (in opinion of speaker) > > > > > > > > -woman's bike or bike for women = "biciklin" (also in > > > > opinion of > > > > speaker, of course) > > > > > > > > > > > > I think all in the speech is subjective because it > > > > informs firstly > > > > about the speaker, and secondary about the reality. > > > > > > While this certainly poses an interesting insight into > > the > > > speaker's inner psychology, it really is totally > > unhelpful > > > for communication. If you come out of a shop on a busy > > > street on Omnial Island and hail a gendarme asking him > > > "where's my biciklin?" And he'll look at you, sigh, and > > say > > > "You're bicikul is tied up over there..." > > > > > > That's just my opinion on "subjective gender". > > > > > > > >> When the language evolving from Amnial to Omnial > > it > > > > was > > > > >> simplified > > > > >> following the law denominated in the island "Law > > about > > > > >> the constant of > > > > >> linguistic difficulty for any language" or its > > inverse > > > > >> "Law of horror > > > > >> vacuii of the primolingual brain organ": with the > > > > >> evolution all the > > > > >> languages become simpler. > > > > > > > > > > > > >This "law" is flawed, and no linguist in good > > conscience > > > > >would ever agree with it. Please show us how Spanish > > > > >grammar is actually "simpler" than Latin! > > > > > > > > > > [snip] > > > [Spanish v. Latin complexity] > > > > > > > But I think the morphology and syntax of Spanish is > > > > simpler as Latin > > > > because it is simpler to use a preposition than > > several > > > > irregular > > > > substantival declinations and that is simpler to use > > a > > > > conjunction > > > > than several and irregular verbal conjugations. > > > > > > That's what _you_ say. But then again, _you_ speak > > Spanish > > > and had to learn Latin! ;) > > > > > > I had no difficulty in switching to an inflected > > language. > > > Even then, Latin isn't a _pure_ infelcting language -- > > it > > > has its share of prepositions too. > > > > > > > And I think you are right, (according to the double > > > > Omnial law!), > > > > speaking: > > > > (Spanish front Latin) "its complexities lie in other > > > > areas" . > > > > > > It's just how languages are. I find the small residual > > > gender distinction in English (he/she/it, where he and > > she > > > are only used for people and it can be used for people > > > sometimes) unproblematic. But it confounds people who > > do > > > not distinguish gender in pronouns! > > > > > > > The languages are born very complicated in morphology > > and > > > > syntax > > > > (strict grammar), but simpler in semantics, lexical > > or > > > > phrasal, in > > > > pragmatics and in vocabulary. > > > > > > And they swing back and forth. Languages change. > > > > > > > In our opinion the languages become, through > > diachronic > > > > development, > > > > very complicated in semantics, pragmatics and > > vocabulary, > > > > but simpler > > > > in morphology and syntax. > > > > > > And they recomplexify as well. Good examples are the > > > build-up of auxiliary verbs in spoken English. Where > > you > > > might read in a book "Had I known you were comming, I > > > should have ordered dinner", you might hear "If I would > > > have known you would have came over, I could have > > ordered > > > food". Thus you can see a language whose semantics and > > > vocabulary have become complex, does _not_ necessarily > > have > > > a simpler morphology or syntax. > > > > > > > So the languages of primitive societies (in some > > > > technological sense > > > > of primitive) are very complicated in the strict > > grammar > > > > (morphology > > > > and syntax). > > > > > > Not always; and there are many languages of modern > > > societies that are equally complex (Spanish for > > example). > > > Spain is a first world country, yet it has an amazingly > > > complex verbal system, full of all kinds of tenses and > > > persons that English's very simple verb system lacks. > > > > > > > Please, see an example of Sapir de El lenguaje pag 39 > > > > (Fondo de > > > > Cultura Económica. Mexico) about one word in paiute > > (west > > > > Utah): > > > > > > > > Wiitokuchumpunkuruganiyugwivantum (!!!) > > > > > > It's a polysynthetic language. And? I just hope their > > > buffalo BBQ was good! There are different ways of > > putting > > > bits of thought together, and this format is but one of > > > them. > > > > > > > >And what's with ser vs. estar? Isn't esse good > > enough > > > > for > > > > you!? > > > > > > > > > > > > That difference ("ser" versus "estar") is very easy > > to > > > > understand if > > > > you learn Spanish or Catalan before the puberty. > > > > > > I had no difficulty with ser and estar, even having > > learnt > > > it after. Don't place so much faith in puberty as a > > > roadblock to language learning! > > > > > > My question addresses the _increasing_ complexity of > > > Spanish over Latin, while you had said "But I think the > > > morphology and syntax of Spanish is simpler as > > Latin..." > > > > > > > So it is > > > > more > > > > difficult to learn Spanish after the puberty. That is > > > > equal for all > > > > the languages because its difficulty increases very > > much > > > > if it is > > > > learned after the puberty. > > > > > > Like I've said before, I don't buy into this theory. > > > > > > > >To be frank, most of the trepidation regarding > > > > auxlanging > > > > >is due to its incessant politicking. Artlangers > > > > continually > > > > >celebrate each others' work and encourage each other > > in > > > > >their persuit of the perfect conlang. > > > > > > > > >On the other hand, auxlangers come to the table with > > the > > > > >perfect auxlang in hand and harangue each other with > > why > > > > >any given one is the best and should be adopted by > > the > > > > UN, > > > > >etc, and how all the other auxlangs ever invented > > are > > > > >perfect examples of mental diahrrea and should all > > be > > > > >flushed down the nearest allegorical commode. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I think the perfect language, or a perfect language, > > is > > > > not able to be > > > > built by anybody. Because if the art is not > > measurable, > > > > then it is > > > > not objectively "agreeable". There is not a > > championship > > > > because here, > > > > there is not a cup. > > > > > > True for artlanging, as I just said. The whole culture > > of > > > auxlangland is different, however. If you've spent any > > time > > > at all on the Auxlang and Conlang lists, you'll know > > this. > > > The cultural difference also explains why there are two > > > lists to begin with. > > > > > > > >Point is, everyone has their gifts, and languages > > are > > > > the > > > > >gifts of some. Perhaps we aren't so sclerosed! > > > > > > > > My mother (and father) tongue is Catalan. > > > > > > > > I have learned Spanish before my puberty (so using > > the > > > > neurones of my > > > > primolingual brain organ only in one brain > > hemisphere) > > > > and I have > > > > learned English after the puberty, (with my > > primolingual > > > > brain organ > > > > already sclerosed. > > > > > > I'm sorry to hear your organs are sclerosed. :( I think > > > there must be folks who are not so incapacitated. > > > > > > > >> 6 Qualifiers : The proto-omnial or Amnial > > > > distinguishes > > > > >> between the > > > > >> endings in "-al" (posesive) and "-el" (genitive), > > as > > > > it > > > > >> was said here > > > > >> in a message about the differences between > > > > >> "adjectivation" and > > > > >> "genitivation" and also between "adverbation" and > > > > >> "ablativation" . > > > > > > > > >I recall. Latin combines the two (genitive of > > > > possession, > > > > >genitive of material or something like that). A > > language > > > > >can distinguish any number of things like that. > > > > > > > > > > > > That is an aspect of the diachronic evolution of the > > > > language from > > > > Amnial to Omnial > > > > > > And indeed, is carried over into Spanish's ubiquitious > > > "de", the black hole into which Latin's genitive and > > > ablative fell! ;) > > > > > > > >>7 Numbers. > > > > >> > > > > >> Firstly, in Amnial, it was used the Latin roots, > > and > > > > >> after, in Omnial, > > > > >> they were replaced for the Greek ones in the first > > > > nine > > > > >> numbers. > > > > > > > > > > > > >Why? > > > > > > > > I don't know for sure the reason... (Latin roots are > > more > > > > polymorphic > > > > and irregular??) > > > > > > They come from the same roots the Greek numbers do > > (except > > > for one, I think); both are regularly derived and have > > > similar overall shape. > > > > > > > >A hexe is a kind of painted talisman, found commonly > > in > > > > > Pennsylvania and parts of Maryland and Ohio. I'm > > not > > > > sure > > > > > how "international" hexes are, though I'm sure > > > > talismanic > > > > > magic is common enough around the world. > > > > > > > > > > > > Thanks for the humor, but I can speak about other > > > > examples: A "home" > > > > in Catalan language is a man, so "ZARA HOME" which is > > a > > > > shop of > > > > textile items for home in English, can seem a shop of > > > > textile men's > > > > items in Catalan. > > > > > > How so? An English speaker visiting Spain would assume, > > > upon seeing "Zara Home", that it is something in > > Catalan or > > > Spanish, not English! > > > > > > > The false friend is often in learning any language > > but it > > > > is easier > > > > that the Omnial word "hexa" the English words > > hegagon, > > > > hexose, > > > > hexabasic, hexaschord, hexaemeron, hexameter, > > hexamine > > > > and more a not > > > > remind the English word "hexe" . > > > > > > False friends are so much fun, though! Anyway, you > > > mentioned the hexe, not hexa- (the Greek number root)! > > > > > > > >> Euphony is overrated -- it's not necessary for a > > > > compound > > > > >> to "sound good" for it to work. It's an excess in > > an > > > > >> auxlang, but another example of how Omnial really > > > > isn't > > > > >> one. > > > > > > > > > > Mind you, I'm not complaining about it as a feature of > > a > > > conlang! > > > > > > > >> c) The morpheme "n" is used in prepositions of > > place > > > > for > > > > >> meaning direction: > > > > >> "Le cate saltit supran le sidil" > > > > > > > > > > > > >How? What's wrong with plain "supra"? Or does it > > > > >disambiguate, if for example supra- were to be > > nouned or > > > > >verbed? > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > With "supra" (here = on) the phrase means: "The cat > > is > > > > jumping on the > > > > chair". > > > > > > > > With "supran" (to + supra : direction + place): "The > > cat > > > > is jumping > > > > to+on the chair". > > > > > > Gotcha: "upon" v. "onto". > > > > > > > >Those being set phrases, even in English. If you > > said > > > > "El > > > > >hombre cantavit de su amor a su ameur", then you'd > > have > > > > >some interesting transtemporal and crosscultural > > > > archaisms! > > > > > > > > To use Latin phrases in Omnial is not an archaism: > > That > > > > would be an > > > > exotic and surprising linguistic use. > > > > > > It can be that, too. An "archaism" simply means using a > > > form proper to an older era of the language. So, using > > an > > > Amnial (which I presume to be older than Omnial) word > > in > > > Omnial. Or a Latin word in Spanish. > > > > > > > In Omnial the only possible archaism it's to use the > > old > > > > Amnial morphemes. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >Could be -- a lot would depend on how familiar > > Omnial > > > > >speakers are with Amnial and how pervasive it is in > > > > their > > > > >culture. If mountains of great (and living) > > literature > > > > were > > > > >written in Amnial, then its influence would be > > strong. > > > > We > > > > >see this in English with the literature of > > Shakespeare > > > > and > > > > >the Bible -- the language of both continue to > > influence > > > > us > > > > >even today. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > In Amnial language only it's conserved the ancient > > > > Constitutional Act > > > > of the little island... > > > > > > > > The literature does not abound in Amnial, not in > > Omnial, > > > > because > > > > everyone prefers to use his own language. > > > > > > > > The education of the Omnial only is done after the > > > > puberty of the > > > > students. For that reason, nobody can have it as a > > > > maternal language, > > > > because its function is only auxlang....at the little > > > > island. > > > > > > It weirds, and no mistake. > > > > > > > In summary, the Omnial being artlang has also an > > auxlang > > > > skin, trying > > > > to obtain its own personality within conlanging, with > > its > > > > own internal > > > > logic, by means of several points: > > > > > > > > > > > > 1- Clear diachronic evolution from Amnial to Omnial > > with > > > > newer slang > > > > formation. > > > > 2- New and different word building system in Omnial. > > > > 3- Infinite number of correlatives and interrogatives > > but > > > > with quite > > > > regular building. > > > > 4- Regular but not monotonous accentuation. > > > > 5- Regular pronunciation of the acronyms and > > initialisms. > > > > 6- The names of the letters, used for spelling, are > > > > ordinary words. > > > > 7- Subjective gender ("biciklin"). > > > > 8- Forming the plural (-s/-es) and the gender > > (-in/-ul ) > > > > in the > > > > pronouns quite equal to the substantives, > > > > 9- Pronominal addition("mitual strate es le plus bele > > de > > > > nosal urbe "), > > > > 10- The adjectivation of the plural ("ilesal") of > > some > > > > pronouns is > > > > possible in Omnial > > > > 11- Gerund in "im" as in the derived adverbs. > > > > 12- Easy combination of imperative and conditional > > with > > > > the tense > > > > morphemes : "If mi habitus penta numismes " > > > > 13- Use of the same suffix "-al" as possessive in the > > > > sustantives, > > > > equal in pronouns, and also equal in the > > correlatives. > > > > 14- Inequality comparative with "aniso" (like the > > > > scientific words as > > > > "anisocitosis" and anisocoriosis" > > > > 15- Tense variation in prepositions and adverbs > > (usually > > > > in slang). > > > > 16- Greek roots for the numbers, known in the > > technical > > > > and scientific > > > > vocabulary. (hexagon for example) > > > > 17- Inclusion of the most frequent (only these) > > > > scientific roots in > > > > the Omnial vocabulary. > > > > 18- Omnial lacks proper names except Omnial > > ("lingue") . > > > > 19- It has some suffix for the prepositions: -ake, > > -n/-en > > > > 20- Easy rules for euphony in the word formation, > > adding > > > > the "o" > > > > between both roots (euphonic epenthesis) like in the > > > > scientific > > > > vocabulary: idear + lingue --> ideolingue; artre + > > > > skopiar --> > > > > artroskopiar. > > > > > > > > > > > > The diachronic evolution from Amnial to Omnial is > > clear > > > > after > > > > observing the 8 grammatical points: > > > > (Amnial and Omnial -->@mnial ?) > > > > > > > > > > > > 1 Alphabet and pronunciation: The Amnial lacked the > > > > letters w, q, x, > > > > and all the words had the accent before the last > > > > consonant. > > > > 2 Noun: The gender was made with "a", "o", and "e" . > > > > 3 Personal Pronouns: The Amnial distinguishes "it" > > for > > > > things and "ol" > > > > for animals. > > > > 4 Verb with tense variation in all adjectives > > derived, > > > > also in > > > > subjunctive and imperative modes. Perfective morpheme > > > > "-ab-"+(it/on). > > > > 5 Specifiers: Amnial distinguishes between the > > > > interrogatives with > > > > "ki-" (kial) and the relatives with "ku-" (kual). > > > > 6 Qualifiers: The proto-omnial or Amnial > > distinguishes > > > > between the > > > > endings in "-al" (posesive) and "-el" (genitive) . > > > > 7 Numbers: Amnial use the Latin roots, but Omnial > > prefer > > > > the Greek roots. > > > > 8 Vocabulary Expansion: .Amnial, without euphonic > > rules, > > > > prefer "ie" > > > > to "-eze" for meaning "abstract quality". > > > http://www.umd.edu http://www.ua.es/en/index.html The name is Nicolas Bourbaki http://es.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Encuestas/2007/Consultas_de_des bibliotecarizaci%C3%B3n_%28segunda_vuelta%29 Are you sure you want to send this message? -------------------------------------------------------------------- IdeoLengua - Lista de Lingüistica e Idiomas Artificiales Suscríbase en [EMAIL PROTECTED] Informacion en http://ideolengua.cjb.net Desglose temático http://groups.yahoo.com/group/ideolengua/files/Administracion/top-ideol.html Enlaces a Yahoo! Grupos <*> Para visitar tu grupo en la web, ve a: http://espanol.groups.yahoo.com/group/ideolengua/ <*> La configuración de tu correo: Mensajes individuales | Tradicional <*> Para modificar la configuración desde la Web, visita: http://espanol.groups.yahoo.com/group/ideolengua/join (ID de Yahoo! obligatoria) <*> Para modificar la configuración mediante el correo: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] <*> Para cancelar tu suscripción en este grupo, envía un mensaje en blanco a: [EMAIL PROTECTED] <*> El uso que hagas de Yahoo! Grupos está sujeto a las Condiciones del servicio de Yahoo!: http://e1.docs.yahoo.com/info/utos.html
