Print

Print


In the book "Empire of the Word" there's a chapter about sanskrit, and it
mentions the depth of homophony in the language.  Supposedly an author
once wrote the the founding myths of two separate Gods in one story, where
based on the choice of meanings you could hear one of two completely
different stories.  The book included a sample paragraph with both
possible interpretations, and it was something.  So yeah, it's possible,
it's been done, and it doesn't sound that easy.

-muskwatch-


> I toyed with the notion of creating a language of such homophony that one
> could read a sentence a number of different, valid ways, the correct
> interpretation only evident in context.
>
> It proved . . . difficult.
>
> On Mon, Mar 7, 2011 at 4:00 PM, Adam Walker <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
>
>> Grab an English dictionary and look up the word *set*. That will give
>> you
>> some idea of how far homophony can go for a single word.  Sure, a good
>> many
>> of the 64 definitions listed in the OED are just minor variations on a
>> theme, but there are quite a number of radically different concepts
>> covered
>> by that one monosyllable.
>>
>> As for having that kind of homophony at work in EVERY word in a
>> language...
>> I think you'd end up with mere gibberish.
>>
>> Adam
>>
>> On Mon, Mar 7, 2011 at 3:15 PM, Miles Forster <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
>>
>> > Hi
>> >
>> > I was wondering how much homophony there can be in a non-tonal
>> language
>> > without causing to much lexical ambiguity.
>> >
>> > Would it be unthinkable for a language to have, say, three meanings
>> per
>> > "word"?
>> >
>> > What if only some words have homophones (but a larger number), while
>> others
>> > don't. Would that help anything?
>> >
>>
>
>
>
> --
> I have stretched ropes from steeple to steeple; garlands from window to
> window; golden chains from star to star, and I dance.  --Arthur Rimbaud
>