Print

Print


On Feb 9, 2014, at 2:44 AM, Alex Fink <[log in to unmask]> wrote:

> I'm moved to ask -- David, will your book say that the presence of homonyms in a language is not _ipso facto_ a fault?  Or that, if you're after naturalism, it's even a positive?  This is something Rosenfelder gets wrong in his own books (sorry for all the comparisons to him!), and it's oddly pervasive.  

lol How could anyone suggest anything otherwise?! How could homonyms even be avoided, if you're going about it honestly? For me, it's an incredible triumph when I come up with two distinct proto forms, and, as a natural result of the sound changes, it produces a homonym. (A very simple pair in Dothraki is vado and vado—filly and turnip—which just came about on account of the v/b merger. Usually the greater difference between the proto forms, the greater the satisfaction in producing a homonym, so vado/vado is too easy.)

Maybe I should actually look at the LCK and see if there's anything else in there that needs proper retreading...

David Peterson
LCS Member Since 2007
[log in to unmask]
www.conlang.org