Print

Print


I'll attempt to answer WRT my exolang project May29. One of the ideas is to rely much less on metaphors, unlike natural languages.

On Sun, 14 Jun 2015 13:51:32 -0700, Jeffrey Brown <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
>
>As an example: It is not sufficient to merely create a lexical entry for
>the preposition “in” for a conlang. For a physical context, “in the house”
>or “in the box”, this works fine, but where the trouble occurs is in the
>extensions to abstract contexts. Does “in” extend to temporal durations?
>Can you say “in Tuesday”?

"Tuesday" would be a predicate, used as an adjunct; "while" is implied by the default aspect, so "in" would be superfluous (and there are no prepositions, anyway).

>Is “in” used for abstract containment: “in the king’s speech”, or “in Kant’s philosophy”?

The language lacks abstracts of that sort.

>Or membership: “in the army”?

There's a predicate for membership: "He's in the army." => "person army member".

>Or fandom: “in the Red Sox” (compare, “he is really into the Red Sox”)?

English is really weird.

>And similarly, it is inadequate to merely create a grammatical entry for a
>morpheme. It is not enough, for example, to specify an opposing pair of
>nominal affixes meaning “quick” versus “slow” – for how does that extend to
>abstract concepts? Is beauty quick or slow? What about liberty? Or trade?

There's a sort of framework WRT the morphology of scalar predicates; the root specifies only the scale, not the "direction". The suffixes -ma and -ki determine that, with -ma used when the quality is "more" than normal and -ki when it's "less" than normal. For each scale, I have to decide which is which, e.g. "hot" and "large" are -ma while "cold" and "small" are -ki. This is easy when there's a distinct 0-end to the scale, but "hungry" isn't.

>This is why cognitive frameworks are important: If you *don’t* think about
>them, you will end up importing your own cognitive framework, from you own
>native language, into your conlang.
>
>--> For an artlang: This importation implies that the speakers of your
>conlang conceptualize their world the way *you* do, the way speakers of
>your native language do. You haven’t fully integrated your conlang with
>your conculture.

I think the May29 grammar guarantees that the framework can be imported only on an item-by-item basis.

BTW I also think that clause chains, which are perfectly naturalistic, can "open the door" to getting away from SAE-clones.

>There is a real language spoken by a people in the Amazon river basin for
>which some of the verbs are marked for “upstream” and “downstream” – in the
>phrase “to paddle a canoe” the verb form is different depending on whether
>you are going against or with the current. This is all I remember about
>this language, not even its name.
>
>Let’s suppose we create a conlang based on this language. We’ll call it
>Xanthic, the language of the Xanth people. In Xanthic, the riparian
>morphemes (upstream/downstream) are obligatory on all verbs, not merely
>river-oriented verbs. (Lest this turn into an argument about morphemes, I
>am using the term loosely, and the morphology may be expressed by an affix,
>it may be fused with other morphemes in an inflection, it may be irregular
>for some verbs, it may be a null marking, whatever.)
>
>
>And all this is only *one* aspect of the cognitive framework of Xanthic.

Xanth??? "Yukon tundra stammer eater?" :)

Jeff

>
>Jeffrey