On Mar 18, 2008, at 6:02 AM, R A Brown wrote: > Jim Henry wrote: >> On Mon, Mar 17, 2008 at 8:01 PM, Jim Henry >> <[log in to unmask]> wrote: >>> On Mon, Mar 17, 2008 at 7:44 PM, Campbell Nilsen >>> <[log in to unmask]> wrote: >>> > Could anybody explain to me how trigger languages work? I >>> don't understand them. >>> >>> There's an explaination, mostly by Carsten [B]ecker, >>> in the Conlang Wikibook: >>> >>> http://en.wikibooks.org/wiki/Conlang/Advanced/Grammar/Trigger >> but see also David J. Peterson's comments on the Talk page: >> http://en.wikibooks.org/wiki/Talk:Conlang/Advanced/Grammar/Trigger > > Quite so - I agree whole-heartedly with David's opening sentence > "Not meaning to rock the boat, but trigger systems, as they're > explained here, don't actually exist in natural languages." Indeed, > I am in complete agreement with the whole of David's comments on > that page. > > So it depends on whether Campbell was asking (a) 'Could anybody > explain to me how trigger [conlangs] languages work?' or (b) 'Could > anybody explain to me how trigger [natlangs] languages work?' > > If (a) is intended, read David's comments from "The notion of the > 'trigger' language, then, is something exclusive to conlangs" > onwards; also take a look at Carsten's Ayeri conlang. > http://www.beckerscarsten.de/conlang/ayeri/ > > If (b) is intended then IMO no such animal exists. So, is it the case that the *terms* "trigger language" and "trigger system" are not used in descriptions of natlangs? Or they are used, but describe something different from the conlang concept of a trigger language?