Print

Print


Hallo conlangers!

On Monday 04 February 2013 09:13:44 R A Brown wrote:

> On 03/02/2013 16:13, Roger Mills wrote:
> [...]
> > RM I don't object to a "few" inflections....
> 
> Yes, I guess a few are acceptable in a simplified conlang.

Sure.

> But IMO if something calls itself "X sine flexione" then it
> should do what it says.  In fact "Latino sine flexione" is
> *not* "sine flexione" - but I guess "Latino cum paucissimis
> flexionibus" doesn't look as neat   ;)

Right.  If someone calls a language "sine flexione", it is 100%
legitimate to expect that that languages indeed does not inflect
its words, and when it does have some inflection nevertheless,
it is wrongly named!
 
> In the case of TAKE, I took it as part of the challenge to
> do the thing without any inflexions.

Yep.
 
> Of course Jeffrey doesn't claim his Sim-Arabic is without
> inflexions, just simplified.

So it is - he just wanted to *simplify* the baroque inflectional
morphology of Classical Arabic, not to abolish it.  That is
perfectly legitimate, no matter what one may feel about it.

> But ...
> 
> > I'd have to examine the materials more closely, however.
> > Offhand, I'm not at all sure it's necessary to retain
> > the masc/fem differences in the tenses, but that, I know,
> > is one of Arabic's features.....
> 
> Division of the universe into things masculine & things
> feminine is one of the features of Romancelangs and of
> Insular Celtic.  But I would not expect such an _arbitrary_
> system to be retained in a _simplified_ Romance conlang or
> Celtic conlang.  Learning arbitrary gender distinctions for
> non living things does not make a language simple.

Indeed not, and thus most auxlangs have abandoned them.
 
> Farsi is an IE language that has dropped grammatical gender;
> it has borrowed heavily from Arabic and seems quite happy
> not to assign arbitrary gender to such borrowings.

Sure.  There are many natlangs that do not have any arbitrary
grammatical genders.  Within IE, there are Farsi and Armenian,
and English at least gets close.  The whole Uralic family has
never known grammatical gender since the days of Proto-Uralic,
and the same is true of several other families.

--
... brought to you by the Weeping Elf
http://www.joerg-rhiemeier.de/Conlang/index.html
"BÍsel asa …am, a …am atha cvanthal a cvanth atha …amal." - SiM 1:1