> On Mon, Jan 7, 2013 at 1:39 AM, Nikolay Ivankov <[log in to unmask]>
> wrote:
> >
> >   I don't know, how can this work for me.
> >
> >    I'm always starting from two different ends - pure grammar and pure
> >    phonology, and then start matching them up by trying to create a
> lexicon.
> >    I've never got far in creating lexicon, because, as an artlanging
> fan, I
> >    love exceptions. And making exceptions suggests going at least one
> step
> >    back, to a protolang where they still were rules. In case of Yanyarin
> it's
> >    four steps back, but now I know precisely, why my words sound like I
> want
> >    them to sound. As I'm still young, I can let myself not bother too
> much
> >    about creating a conlang quickly, and focus on satisfying my tastes.
> >
> >    Well, that's how it works for me, at least )
> >
> >    Kolya
> Obviously the method I'm suggesting is very different from the method
> you prefer. My goal is not to _plan_ a conlang. Not one single user of
> any natlang in the world ever sat down to plan the grammar or
> phonology of their native language. Natlangs are "used into existence"
> by people who do no planning and know nothing about linguistics.
> This project might not even appeal to conlangers for the very reason
> that it is NOT about planning a language, or any aspect of that
> language, but is about using the language to do some short, easy
> translations, keeping everything in your head for maximum fluidity or
> instability.
> Nothing is written down for the very reason that once it's written
> down it becomes too rigid and inflexible. Language evolves when people
> forget how something "is supposed to be" done, or how it was done in
> years gone by. English lost case endings when people forgot how to use
> case endings and started using word order instead. "Went" became the
> past tense of "go" when people forgot that it used to be the past
> tense of "wend". For a conlang to evolve stuff has to be forgotten,
> discarded and replaced constantly. The mistake I made in my previous
> collaborative conlang projects was that nothing was ever forgotten.
> The whole corpus was always there like an anchor holding back all
> growth and evolution.
> This project is entirely based on the requirements that the language
> be unplanned, that it be undocumented, and that it be kept maximally
> fluid and unstable

> Don't forget that English took great leaps forward in evolution during
> a period when few people could read or write and had to keep it all in
> their heads. There was no massive corpus that fought back against
> change, and when the kids "got it wrong" they created a new and better
> language by doing so. (Yes, I know better than to claim one language
> is better than another. I'm saying this for dramatic effect. Call it
> poetic license in support of a cause!)
> --gary

Well, I see no reason why couldn't the presunption of having a language
with no or little corpus be allpied to a "planned" conlang. In fact, that's
precisely how my concultures look like, and that's presicely how and why I
design my conlang's evolution. The things go forgotten and reanalized. In
fact,in constructing a grammar, I also always building a bridge between a
protolang - which is in effect a language with no structure - and a neolang
which has some features I want. And then, starting with a lang with little
known structure, I'm trying to guess how I, as an "illiterate speaker",

- first: may have put the words together so that my vis-a-vis was able to
understand me (a pidgin)

- second: how I could have "mistaken" and what could I have "forgotten" so
that the language evolve towards the neolang.

This means, in particular, that my neolangs are NOT fixed at all. Once I
end up with a nice "mistake" at some point of development, it may reshape
the grammar of neolang completely. And so yes, I do rewrite, reshape and
reorder my grammars

That's basically how Yanyarin has obtained its multiple declinations -
people just made classifiers and compounds to cope with a rapid sound
erosion (again, not planned by this illiterate stone age culture), and
since the compounds were of different orign (say, sometimes one of the
words was nominative, sometimes genitive, sometimes locative) and the
compounding occurred at least twice, the language ended up with so complex
pattern (only to be forgotten in futulang). But that didn't affected a
purpose - a polysynthetic language with overly rich vowel inventory.

That's basically how Sivarian language got its gender distinction by first
syllable - it used to be a definite article). That's also why do verbnouns
agree in gender with subject (originally it was Nom vs. Acc in a tripartite
lang, but I have to think of what it looks like to a layman, not what could
it have been to a linguist). But that again reshaped, but not dismissed the
goal - to make a language with very little but still substantial number of

And finally I can get back to a being having an idea of how languages look
like, but now not I only know that the past form of "go" is "went", but
also why it is so.