Print

Print


Okay, now that I have done extensive research into Tariana (meaning that
I've read the Wikipedia entry on it), I can see what Taliesin means.
Tariana does have a peculiarly large grammar, with much fusion of affixes,
not to mention the "frustrative mood" which I had never heard of, but which
perfectly describes many situations in my work environment.
So, I agree that it is possible to have a naturalistic conlang grammar that
is large, but I would guess that it is simpler to attain naturalism with a
smaller and more manageable grammar. On the other hand, I find Dothraki
grammar to be naturalistic, and it is not a small grammar.
Jeffrey


On Wed, Jun 3, 2015 at 2:10 PM, Jeffrey Brown <[log in to unmask]> wrote:

> Sorry. I had misunderstood.
>
>
> On Wed, Jun 3, 2015 at 2:03 PM, Logan Kearsley <[log in to unmask]>
> wrote:
>
>> On 3 June 2015 at 14:43, Jeffrey Brown <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
>> > Thank you to all who read my essay and responded.
>> >
>> > Here are some replies:
>> [...]
>> > Taliesin: But would you say that Tariana has a naturalistic grammar,
>> > despite it being a freaky monster conlang?
>>
>> I believe the point there is that Tariana is _by definition_
>> naturalistic despite its freaky monsterness, due to actually being a
>> natural language (an endangered one, spoken in Brazil), and not a
>> conlang. Ergo, some level of freaky monsterness must be accepted as
>> still being within the realm of naturalism, even for a conlang, even
>> if it upsets one's aesthetic sensibilities. I.e., "elegance" and
>> "naturalness" are apparently orthogonal categories.
>>
>> -l.
>>
>
>