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.