Print

Print


On Sun, 20 Jan 2013 10:32:40 +0400, Gleki Arxokuna <[log in to unmask]> wrote:

>On Sat, Jan 19, 2013 at 11:50 PM, selpa'i <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
>
>> Is it simply that people are overwhelmed by Ithkuil? Or are they not
>> motivated enough? Is the general opinion really that it cannot be learned?
>> Because I actually doubt that. It is a very difficult language, no
>> question, but other than that, there are polysynthetic natural languages
>> with similarly complex morphologies, and there are also natural languages
>> with similarly complex phonologies.
>
>For me the biggest obstacle is that Ithkuil is not decomposable. You can't
>utter only one affix. You have to build the whole word. This is in direct
>violation of esperantic principle of sufficiency and necessesity (add as
>many affixes as you need but not more). Of course esperanto itself violates
>this principle although not to such extent.

I find this a difficulty for a similar reason.  To the extent Ithkuil is an experiment in whether it's possible for a speaker to learn all its categories fluently, the _means_ of their expression seems to me to introduce a horrible confound.  I dare say that, even given a set of categories which I could deploy with complete fluency in my native language, I'd never be able to master such a fusional expression of them as is found in e.g. tables 5(a)--(l) of http://www.ithkuil.net/03_morphology.html !  There are various local similarities of nearby values in that table, but globally it has nothing like a pattern (that I can discern).  
The situation has been improved since the first revision of Ithkuil, but I would've probably still gone much further -- make every non-uniplex configuration some nonzero affix, every non-delimitative extension some non-zero affix, etcetera, then string the whole lot together agglutinatively, and just bear the blow to compactness.

Alex