Print

Print


2012/12/31 Matthew Martin <[log in to unmask]>:
>>A possible problem is that some languages, such as
>> sign languages, are not directly related to a separate
>> "people/ethny/group/community", so I should "define a people" for each
>> language (American deaf people, lojbanist people, etc.).
>
> I don't know about your language, but I would imagine a word should reflect the salient points of the world according to the inner logic of your language and it's speakers (which could just be you or some imaginary entity). If social grouping is important, then you will be likely to create words that reflect social characteristics.

Mine is kind of a philosophical language. All words from the same
class begins with the same CV syllable. For instance, fruits and
vegetables' names could begin with "ma" and be "mapanti" (banana),
"manansi" (apple), etc.

So, I can define a single class for people, nation, ethny and language
or a different class for each one. For instance, we know that
Kiswahili is "Swahili language", Waswahili is "Swahili culture" and
Msahili is "Swahili people" (not sure).

In my language, maybe it would be better define a single term
"tisuali" (Swahili) and specifying "{language-of} tisuali",
"{culture-of} tisuali", etc. So, "ti-" would not be a pureblood
preffix, since all expressions refering to Swahili in any way would
have the complete expression "tisuali", and other words ending in
"-suali" could have an unrelated meaning. For instance, "masuali"
could be use for some Indonesian fruit whose local name resembles
"suali".