Print

Print


Would you be able to convert the conlang version back into the natlang
original? Are they (what's the word?) isomorphic?

stevo

On Wed, Dec 19, 2012 at 6:35 PM, Gary Shannon <[log in to unmask]> wrote:

> That's the idea. This is to create a _conlang_ grammar which could be
> used to translate (paraphrase) the native text.
>
> I have no intention of describing the grammar of the original text,
> but of discovering a more parsimonious ORIGINAL grammar that is
> minimal, yet suffices to express the ideas of the native text,
> regardless of the original language of the native text.
>
> I would consider a conlang grammar reasonably complete if I could use
> it to translate Don Quijote from Spanish into the conlang, as well as
> to translate Moby DIck from English into the conlang. So the grammar
> must be specific to the conlang, not specific to any natlang.
>
> In other words, of course I will change the words, and the word order,
> and way verbs are conjugated, etc., etc., because the grammar is not
> meant to describe English, but to describe a conlang very different
> from English, but which has (hopefully) the simplest grammar possible
> for a fully expressive language.
>
> --gary
>
> On Wed, Dec 19, 2012 at 3:20 PM, MorphemeAddict <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
> > I like the idea of a recursive minimal grammar, but I'm not so sure about
> > the idea of paraphrasing, since that changes the words and/or word so
> that
> > you're no longer dealing with a native text.
> >
> > stevo
> >
>