Print

Print


I remember seeing a conlang on Langmaker called “Chicken”. It has only one word.

Siva

> On 10 Nov 2014, at 8:50 am, Leo Moser <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
> 
> IMO if a 'language' were to be completely illogical, it would have to 
> communicate nothing at all. 
> 
> And it would no longer be a language at all. 
> Only gibberish.
> 
> So those of you involved in this effort need IMO to 
> define in what specific area(s) your language is to be 
> illogical. 
> 
> Regards,            Leo Moser 
> 
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Constructed Languages List [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of Daniel Demski
> Sent: Sunday, November 09, 2014 1:24 PM
> To: [log in to unmask]
> Subject: Re: ILlogical language
> 
> One could always do something a little more interesting than fixed morphemes. Perhaps the roots are trisyllabic and always have voiced consonants, and various functions are accomplished by devoicing some or all, moving around the consonants, or more convoluted shifts.
> 
> The most extreme idea I can come up with is making basic sensory perception garbled; suppose the speakers can see, but only have perhaps 9 pixels of visual light, yet each pixel has superhuman color sensation (perhaps including sensing polarization of the light). That doesn't do much on its own, but further suppose these beings have a shocking variety of superstitions and misconceptions about visual phenomena. For example, directly facing an object obviously means getting it into the middle pixel, and also happens to position it in the best place for hearing. Thus the middle pixel is the 'singing pixel', but in certain very common circumstances actually hearing the object clearly is undesireable. Objects are tagged as bothersome or evil if they end up 'singing', which often means they are described with different vocabulary or referenced indirectly. However, how large an object is, and how much it moves around, also affect how likely it will end up in the center of the field of vision. Thus an object might be described as noisy or evil, or described only in oblique, indirect ways, as a way of indicating that it is large or fast.
> 
> Hmm, that didn't end up as extreme as I had intended. Well, suppose a language uses puns to indicate past tense; the worse the pun, the further in the past. Or suppose a language highly values strange turns of phrase which 'don't mean what they say'; whenever someone comes up with a counterintuitive term or idiom, it is leapt upon and becomes popular. Imagine the 'flammable/inflammable' problem causes English speakers to start sticking "in-" in front of as many words as possible, as a humorously confusing intensifier; it could even spread to "un-". Seems like negation would be especially susceptible to such nonsense, so we might as well just suppose most ways of negating things come to mean "not, or obviously, or very"; "unreachable" would refer to something either totally out of reach, or something intentionally positioned within easy reach.
> 
> We could go further in this direction and just suppose a large class of semantic features follow this pattern; +feature, or quite obviously -feature.
> 
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Constructed Languages List [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of Guilherme Santos
> Sent: Sunday, November 09, 2014 1:54 PM
> To: [log in to unmask]
> Subject: Re: ILlogical language
> 
> There's ᵷ♫ᵽ (http://www.aveneca.com/cbb/viewtopic.php?f=6&t=4155&), but i assume one could undoubtedly worsen it. *ᵷ♫ᵽ i*s still pretty damn funny)
> 
> 2014-11-09 16:19 GMT-02:00 Jeffrey Brown <[log in to unmask]>:
> 
>> Having been reading the discussion about Patrik Austin's "Reduced 
>> Natural Grammar" and its use in an engelang, and whether it was better 
>> or worse than predicate logic for the creation of a logical language, 
>> I began to think about the creation of an ILlogical lanaguage.
>> 
>> By this, I mean a language whose grammar is as illogical or irrational 
>> as possible. As people have pointed out ad nauseam, natlang grammars 
>> have many features that are not logical, but these are merely alogical 
>> grammars. I'm talking about an anti-logical grammar, a language that 
>> strives for the irrational, the malformed, and the utterly senseless.
>> 
>> One way this could be done is through humor, like Bill Spruiell's 
>> Bureaulang, with phantasmagorically bizarre word classes, such as 
>> "arthropods; fish; groups of people characterized by moving in 
>> formation (incl. Mhaevanni in general); rigid containers; trees; 
>> non-shiny minerals in the green-blue range," yet that language, could, in theory, be spoken...
>> maybe. Rather, I am thinking about a a true "Toki Ike," the conlang 
>> equivalent of "Malbolge," that is, a language designed to be as 
>> obdurate, as opaque, and as cthulhuian as possible.
>> 
>> But... probably someone has already done it... even worse. So, has it 
>> been done? By whom? Any live links?
>> 
>> Right now, I am thinking along lines such as: "The verbal infix -pa- 
>> marks the past tense, if the moon is waxing, and the referenced event 
>> was, to the knowledge of the speaker, observed by the listener, who 
>> has attempted, without success, to deny his culpability in the entire 
>> affair; or it marks the progressive aspect, if the moon is waning, or 
>> the speaker is not aware of the lunar phase and chooses not to reveal 
>> his astronomical ignorance to the listener; or it is a reduplicative 
>> intensifier, if the actuality of the referenced event is dubious, but 
>> the listener wishes that it had occurred; otherwise -pa- indicates 
>> number/gender agreement with the postposed object."
>> 
>> Jeffrey
>>