LISTSERV mailing list manager LISTSERV 16.5

Help for CONLANG Archives


CONLANG Archives

CONLANG Archives


CONLANG@LISTSERV.BROWN.EDU


View:

Message:

[

First

|

Previous

|

Next

|

Last

]

By Topic:

[

First

|

Previous

|

Next

|

Last

]

By Author:

[

First

|

Previous

|

Next

|

Last

]

Font:

Proportional Font

LISTSERV Archives

LISTSERV Archives

CONLANG Home

CONLANG Home

CONLANG  April 2002, Week 3

CONLANG April 2002, Week 3

Subject:

Re: Gulf

From:

Raymond Brown <[log in to unmask]>

Reply-To:

Constructed Languages List <[log in to unmask]>

Date:

Sat, 20 Apr 2002 17:51:28 +0100

Content-Type:

text/plain

Parts/Attachments:

Parts/Attachments

text/plain (55 lines)

At 2:08 am +0100 20/4/02, Tim May wrote:
>Nik Taylor writes:
[snip]

> > Those are just some of the problems that make it impractical.  :-)
> > There's also the fact that 800 words CANNOT be used to describe any
> > concept.
>
>Well, it's largely a matter of how you define "word" - you can use
>idiomatic phrases, but they'll need to be seperately learned, you
>can't derive the meaning solely from the constituents.  This is what
>Basic English does, I believe - things like "make good" for succeed.

Or does it mean "repair" ?

That's one of the problems with idioms - they are (potentially) ambiguous
and, as you rightly say, have to be learnt as separate "words".  IMO they
are a source of confusion and a real, separate word rather than a spurious
compound is preferable.

>In this sense, you can express everything with just 2 words - 1 and 0.

You can, but unless your brain is equipped with a processor dealing with a
billion 'words' or so a second, communication is going to be a long,
tedious and error-ridden process  :)

[snip]
>
>On the other hand, if you're not concerned with how long it takes to
>say something...  the Longman Defining Vocabulary is only 2197 words
>and some affixes, and can be used to define any word in the Longman
>dictionary.  In theory, you can replace any word with its definition

Yes, but to freeze the language at 2197 words might make the expression of
new concepts in the future very awkward - the set of words, it seems to me,
has to be open-ended.

[snip]
>tool for dictionaries, not a theoretical exercise.  I wonder what size
>the minimal set of concepts is?  I'm not tempted to try to create it

Some have  :)

Reginal Dutton thought it was 491 - that's the number of "root words" in
final version of Speedwords (1951).

More recently, Jeffrey Henning has experimented with the minimal set in a
project originally called 'minimalex' but later renamed 'Dublex'.   There's
a link to it from his Langmaker web-site.


======================
   XRICTOC ANECTH
======================

Top of Message | Previous Page | Permalink

Advanced Options


Options

Log In

Log In

Get Password