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  November 2014, Week 2

CONLANG November 2014, Week 2

Subject:

Re: ILlogical language

From:

Jeffrey Brown <[log in to unmask]>

Reply-To:

Constructed Languages List <[log in to unmask]>

Date:

Mon, 10 Nov 2014 08:31:48 -0800

Content-Type:

text/plain

Parts/Attachments:

Parts/Attachments

text/plain (56 lines)

Hi, Patrik, I sincerely doubt that whatever I do with this conlang idea
will prove anything at all.
For those interested in this thread, when I talked about an illogical,
difficult, obdurate language, I was thinking about the grammar. One can, of
course, create a phonology that is extremely hard to pronounce, full of
tongue-twisters, and clusters of clicks and implosives and all that. And,
it is also possible to make a difficult orthography that hampers
readability. But I wasn't talking about that stuff.
As I've mulled this over more, I've realized that I don't understand what I
meant either! Originally, I was thinking along the lines that any morphemic
marking would be UNrelated to the referred event or the speaker/listener
context. As Virginia said, though, you could still crunch through it and
come up with an utterance that was consistent with whatever silly syntactic
rules apply (e.g. I am having a bad hair day (or for me, a no hair day,
like usual), and my tooth aches, but I had hotcakes for breakfast, and I do
love hotcakes --> use  ablaut form #3A). But is that actually ILlogical, or
just plain silly?
Your comments and musings are appreciated. Keep them coming.
Jeffrey



On Mon, Nov 10, 2014 at 2:48 AM, Patrik Austin <[log in to unmask]>
wrote:

> Hi guys,
>
> I'm glad to see I've been a source of inspiration :)
>
> My idea with "Reduced Natural Grammar" VS predicate logic is to show that
> all languages are basically logical systems. So the way I see it, an
> illogical language would be an unlanguage, although I'm about to prove
> myself wrong.
>
> The core logical variable in any language is probably positive/negative. A
> professor of linguistics once told me language has no logic. This means
> that if I tell you I'll pay you a tenner for washing my laundry, I may
> afterwards point out that there's no way to examine the truth value of what
> I said. The judge may disagree.
>
> However, there is a language where the word 'no' is infamously ambiguous;
> this is sometimes called Womanese. Here's an attempt for a grammar:
> http://www.enotalone.com/forum/showthread.php?t=82021
>
> Again, some people might disagree. A friend of mine, a transsexual woman,
> wrote the song "Ei!" (No!) for her punk band. The words go something like
> this:
>
> "No is no is no is no is no is no.... Shall I bend it from wire or do I
> need to kick your butt to make you understand what the word 'no' means?"
>
> Although someone might argue that even transsexual women never become
> fully fluent in Womanese. Anyway Jeffrey - don't give up on your project.
> Whatever you do, it's likely to prove my point :)
>

Top of Message | Previous Page | Permalink

Advanced Options


Options

Error during command authentication.

Error - unable to initiate communication with LISTSERV (errno=111). The server is probably not started.

Log In

Log In

Get Password

Get Password


Subscribe or Unsubscribe

Subscribe or Unsubscribe


Archives

ATOM RSS1 RSS2



LISTSERV.BROWN.EDU

CataList Email List Search Powered by the LISTSERV Email List Manager