Print

Print


On 5 January 2013 17:40, Gary Shannon <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
> I'm deferring various choices until I get more experience with the way the
> language feels. Basically, I'm translating things any way I feel like it
> until the most natural-feeling way begins to emerge from the noise.
>
> Day 5: http://fiziwig.com/conlang/saam_ugulam/page_3.html
> Days 3 & 4: http://fiziwig.com/conlang/saam_ugulam/page_2.html
> Days 1 & 2: http://fiziwig.com/conlang/saam_ugulam/
>
> I ended up in one case using a postposition in an adverbial phrase but a
> preposition in an adjectival phrase. It felt O.K., though, so I'm not going
> to worry about it for now.

How interesting! I was just about to start a new thread on that
precise topic, because Celimine does the same thing and I am becoming
dissatisfied with my existing in-world explanation for how it came
about.

> One thing did occur to me; When young children learn a pidgin they innovate
> and elaborate upon the naive grammar turning it into a more sophisticated
> creole. As adults we lack the instinctive creativity of a four-year-old,
> but to what extent could we duplicate that process by understanding,
> analytically, what it is that children seem able to do instinctively? In
> other words, to what extent could we take an incomplete, raw, unfinished
> conlang sketch and polish into a sophisticated language the way a child
> would do? Not by "design", but by applying the kind of transforms a child
> would naturally apply to a naive grammar like a pidgin.

That is an interesting question. I'm trying to develop Mev Pailom in
that instinctive fleshing-out sort of way, but most of the time I end
up thinking deeply and analytically about the intuitions that I first
have, so maybe I can answer it in a few months.

-l.