Hi again, Pasi.

> This week i've been thinking a lot about this mailing list. We should
> be experts in understanding eachother, based on the training we have,
> either scholar or autodidact (sp?). Still i haven't experienced a
> group with so many misunderstandings leading to arguments.
>=20
> How can this be? Is it because we are so preoccupied with the models
> of languages that we are working on inside our heads? Or is it
> because we live on the very frontiere of knowledge where things
> haven't settled yet into familiar surroundings?

I'd say it's the last.  How do you distinguish between a model of a =
language
and the language itself, for instance?

> Wed, 7 May 1997, Jens Stengaard Larsen
>=20
> [...]
> > > You got me wrong, i think. Even though a kernel is small it
> > > doesn't have to be concentrated. The core must _be_ the glue. =
...or
> > > a better picture would be a frame on which we hang the extension.
> > I think what we're calling the glue or frame here is the grammar, =
and
> > the things it glues together are the semantic elements.  And still =
it
> > seems to me that you're looking for the core of all languages, =
rather
> > than of a specific one.  You're looking for it in child language, =
but
> > that's really no better and no worse than looking for it in the =
oldest
> > languages we have reconstructions of.  There's only one thing in =
your
> > approach that is different from the one used in theoretical =
linguistics,
> > namely the direction of your method.  Linguists set up specific
> > theories of language and then explores the filthy reality to have =
those
> > theories repelled, confirmed or altered.  You seem to set up a =
language
> > before applying theories on it.
=20
> Ouch, that did hurt...

Why?  There could be a point in that. (Cf. Philip's posting about =
Lojban).
=20
> If i had meant grammar i would have written grammar, but as you can
> see i didn't...
>=20
> I am looking for something to base a language on and childspeak has
> one advantage: I may study it myself as it is happening.
>=20
> And... No, i did the theory first. It took me fifteen years.
=20
I'm not sure what to make of this, so I'll just let it stand.
=20
> > > > > In the mean time i continue to collect bastard words (you =
don't
> > > > > happen to have any greenlandic ones...)
> > > > I have dictionaries full. Seeking under your name in "Oqaatsit
> > > > Kalaallisuumiit Qallunaatuumut" (`Words from Greenlandic to =
Danish')
> > > > gives "pasivaa" (-vaa is the verb ending). It means "he suspects =
him".
> > > > If you want another word, just tell me.
> > > I'll take all words you (and everyone else) can throw at me, but
> > > first: is pasi a root or is it a compund?
> > I haven't got the dictionary with me today, sorry.  But I suspect =
it's a
> > root (though with a somewhat wider semantic field than English
> > `suspect', I think).
=20
> How do i say "i suspect you" ?

That would be `pasivakkit', IIRC.  Wait, doesn't that mean `I understand =
you'?
Ah, no, that would be `paasivakkit' with a double a (I often have the
opportunity to say `paasinngilakkit' "I do not understand you" to my =
teacher,
so I remember that one...)

> > > ...dictionaries full and all i get is one word... *hmm*
> > Heh.  I've given you more Greenlandic words than you've given anyone =
in
> > Bastard.  :<)
=20
> That's unfair and you know it. How can i give you a bastard word,
> when _all_ words used in bastard are collected from other languages?

You can tell me which words are collected. As you did with six:
=20
> Sana, word, finnish.
> Rima, rhyme, spanish.
> Baba, father, hebrew.
> Guru, teacher, hindi.
> Suxi, sushi, japanese.
> Vidu, house, tamil.
>=20
> All useless for trading more words with.

Don't say that.

> So Jens, how much will your words cost me a piece?

One word a word seems most reasonable, so here are six Greenlandic ones:

Nalu, to not know (I use that a lot with my teacher too)
Matu, door / to close
Sana, to build
Timi, body
Nanu, polar bear
Nuna, land

OK, "sana" was occupied already, so I'll give you a seventh:

Sila, weather (also used in the sense of `wit').

> > > > > because i think that it has a chance of a future in a space
> > > > > exploration situation. (...or i hope it will, to say the
> > > > > truth.  Building a new world from scratch is a thought that
> > > > > appeals to me, and that thought inspires me to improve
> > > > > myself.)
> > > > That's what we call an artlang...
> > > Why Artlang? Did i fail an auxlang test?  :(
> > Well, you passed the artlang test in the same move.  But there's the
> > difference that in Auxland you can build new worlds, but not from
> > scratch, whereas in Artland you must do it from scratch if you don't
> > want to infringe somebody's copyright.
=20
> I said i want to build a _world_ from scratch, and that is not only
> about language. There is absolutely no sense in building the earth
> again. So why do you think i would do that?
>=20
> But to build a "world" out there (in space) means starting from the
> closest thing to nothing known to man: 10E-19 atmospheres (vacuum).
>=20
> How do i contain air? Where do i get the materials? How can i get
> more oxygen? What can i grow out there to eat? How does society work?
> How good an ecology can i assemble? How can the habitants
> communicate to, from and with the earth or other space colonies?
>=20
> I think you get the idea by now...

As far as I can see it's the very prototype of an artlang.  Not a bad =
one,
really.

I'll tell you what: in the Encyclope'die, the French encyclopedia from =
just
before their revolution, there's an entrance on international auxiliary
languages.  It sketches out something that looks a bit like Esperanto or =
Ido
(Zamenhof probably read it).  It was about that time that conlangs began =
to
divide themselves into art and aux.  Before that, any kind of human =
all-global
authority would be unthinkable, just as colonizing space is today (well,
actually not "unthinkable", but very, very utopian).  After all, if I
understand you correctly, you're making Bastard also in order to =
communicate
with computers; so you're already taking non-human species into account. =
 =
This
in my view qualifies it as an artlang rather than an auxlang.

> > > And it's not just about creating a language, it's homework when i
> > > think i know it all, hard work and lots more of thinking...
> Just think about it for a second. Bastard is just a part of that.

The more I think about it, the less it seems to me that it should bother =
you
which side of the aux/art-line Bastard is on.  You might take delight in
Sandor Szatmari's "Vojag^o al Kazohinio" once your Esperanto is up to =
it.

> > > > > But if any part of bastard can be used to create an =
international
> > > > > auxiliary language, then use it , i would be proud if i could
> > > > > help in any way. But, very often i feel like i'm only wasting =
your
> > > > > time with my strange ideas, like the arguments with Mark P. =
Line
> > > > > right now. I just can't express what i think and i only seem =
to make
> > > > > it worse.
> > > > The whole idea of building languages is generally considered =
weird,
> > > > even if learning and using languages really means to build them, =
so
> > > > you don't have to let any strangeness stop you.  Maybe you =
should
> > > > express your ideas in Bastard first, and only then give us an =
abridged
> > > > translation in English? :-)
> > > I can't do that yet. I still lack the words to do that in =
bastard...
> > Shouldn't Bastard be a language with maximum possibilities for ad =
hoc
> > loan-words?
=20
> No.
> Bastard is not the frame on which i hang extensions. It's a small
> tool with no additional parts. It has 4096 root words called stems,
> and the 64 bends i have been telling you about already. And that's
> it. The structure of bastard doesn't allow more words to be added.

Does it allow words to fall into disuse?
[...]

--
Jens S. Larsen, lingvist (BA in spe)

<"http://dorit.ihi.ku.dk/~steng/index"> * <"mailto:[log in to unmask]">