Print

Print


All of these are obvious, yes. But they're also wrong.

Agreement is redundancy, and usable languages need it. You don't realize
this, but agreement can go beyond gender and inflection -- for what reason
do we say "powerful computer" and "strong tea" but not "strong computer"
and "powerful tea"? Isolating languages rely on this form of redundancy.

You think inflection is complicated, but syntax is not? That's because you
come from a Greco-Latinate tradition where syntax is ignored.

You really mean "phonemic".

How will you decide what words are gonna be included? You disdain a "large
vocabulary", after all. What meanings are "basic" and "universal"?

You don't understand lexical distinctions.


Sorry, I hate to make assumptions, but was this to me?

On Mon, Oct 19, 2015 at 3:21 PM, Sid <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
> All of these are obvious, yes. But they're also wrong.
>
> Agreement is redundancy, and usable languages need it. You don't realize
> this, but agreement can go beyond gender and inflection -- for what reason
> do we say "powerful computer" and "strong tea" but not "strong computer"
> and "powerful tea"? Isolating languages rely on this form of redundancy.
>
> You think inflection is complicated, but syntax is not? That's because you
> come from a Greco-Latinate tradition where syntax is ignored.
>
> You really mean "phonemic".
>
> How will you decide what words are gonna be included? You disdain a "large
> vocabulary", after all. What meanings are "basic" and "universal"?
>
> You don't understand lexical distinctions.
>
> On Tue, Oct 20, 2015 at 3:00 AM, William Wright <
> [log in to unmask]> wrote:
>
>> I don't mean to kick old coals, but I might be inclined to disagree
>> with you about some of your assertions, TC. Who's to say, for example,
>> that inflections make things complicated? After all, someone speaking
>> a more synthetic language (i.e. Spanish, Hindi, Bengali, Arabic,
>> Russian, some of the most widely spoken languages on the planet)
>> wouldn't find them all that difficult to learn (depending on what
>> kinds of inflections we're talking about, granted). Furthermore,
>> inflection systems can be created without much difficulty in such a
>> way as to permit the easy assimilation of loanwords. The same goes for
>> tenses (as for inflections); the fact that some languages rely heavily
>> on the use of tense means that speakers of those languages would be at
>> a disadvantage when learning the IAL in question. As a final note,
>> forgoing the use of synthesis *and* that of lexical distinctions
>> between nouns, verbs, and adjectives would force learners to remember
>> complicated rules for word order, which ultimately puts them in the
>> same position that one tries to avoid by getting rid of *inflections*
>> in the first place; that is, the learners have to remember complicated
>> rules and learners whose native language does not favor the morphology
>> of the IAL are at a disadvantage.
>>
>> I suppose (IMO) at the end of the day it comes down to learnability. I
>> mean, regularity and non-equivocation and phonetic scripts are all
>> well and good, but none of them possesses a significant benefit (as
>> far as I can see) beyond easing learnability; after all, almost every
>> natlang gets along fairly without at least one of them, if not all
>> three. Thus, the potential future native speakers of an IAL are not
>> really what one has to worry about: they will get along just as fine
>> as the rest of us do. The problem (or at the very least the *first*
>> problem) is making learning the language easy for "non-native"
>> speakers (i.e. everyone, at least at first). Thus (again, IMO), the
>> ultimate question that is brought up when making "the perfect IAL" is
>> "how can I make this language as easy as possible for the maximum
>> number of people to learn?". Given that, there ought to be (at least
>> in theory) a minimum of one "perfect" IAL, one that maximizes
>> learnability for the maximum number of people (sorry for the util
>> logic again); that said, there is the legitimate argument that such a
>> language is impossible to create. After all, how on earth would one
>> test the learnability of some aspect of language (i.e. phonology,
>> morphology, syntax, etc.) in terms of an average across the world
>> population? As far as I can see, the only absolute surefire way would
>> be to do extensive tests on every individual on the planet, which
>> would naturally be tantamount to impossible. However, to counteract
>> that argument, one might point out that such extensive study is not
>> necessary, and that each individual can be fairly characterized based
>> on the specific language (or dialect of a language) that they speak.
>> That is, it is safe to assume that most, if not all, German speakers
>> will be familiar with more or less the same variations on the many
>> aspects of language. Taking this to be so, how might one go about
>> creating "the perfect IAL" then? Well, assuming learnability is eased
>> with increased familiarity, one merely need only take the aspect in
>> question (say, for simplicity's sake, phonology) and weight each
>> possible variation on it (in this case, the varying phonemes) with a
>> number representing the number of people who are "familiar" with that
>> specific variation on the aspect as a result of the language they
>> speak (i.e. that can pronounce a given phoneme, based on what language
>> they speak and the phoneme inventory of that language), organize all
>> the data, create some cutoff point (a point where a sound is foreign
>> enough to a sufficient number of speakers that it would be detrimental
>> to include in the IAL's inventory, most likely 50% of speakers or
>> less), select all variations meeting and/or exceeding the cutoff
>> point, and bingo: one has the perfect variation of that aspect. Of
>> course, this is naturally easier said than done, even for something
>> like phonology, but the principles still hold true, not to mention it
>> is far more attainable than the previously mentioned exhaustive
>> method. Once one has the "perfect variation" one need only join it
>> with other "perfect variations" (this step will probably result on the
>> alteration of some variations, mind you) and one then has the "perfect
>> language", at least from a learnability standpoint, and all from
>> seeking to maximize learnability for the maximum number of people
>> (people meaning those presently living on earth and not speaking the
>> IAL).
>>
>> Bringing the two expressed point together, one best goes about
>> creating an IAL by trying to make it as similar as possible to the
>> maximum number of languages, which in practice entails constructing it
>> using the aspects held most in common by all natlangs (being sure to
>> weight a given natlang's contributions based the numbers of speakers
>> it has). Thus, the question as to whether or not an IAL should be more
>> synthetic or analytic or whatever can and should be answered in terms
>> of how many potential learners would find such a convention more or
>> less hard to grasp than some other convention.
>>
>> So yeah. That's my rant for today (hopefully). If there's something I
>> missed or clearly don't know, please tell me. I'm new at this.
>>
>> Q'asahrra!
>>
>>
>>
>> On Mon, Oct 19, 2015 at 11:48 AM, Jörg Rhiemeier <[log in to unmask]>
>> wrote:
>> > Hallo conlangers!
>> >
>> > On 19.10.2015 20:08, Jeffrey Brown wrote:
>> >
>> >> Hello "temporary",
>> >> I think you'll get better answers to these questions on the AUXLANG
>> forum
>> >> (better = from people who have been thinking about these same issues for
>> >> years and years).
>> >> Jeffrey
>> >
>> >
>> > Exactly.  Let me add something: As discussions of the design criteria for
>> > IALs easily turn into heated debates which IAL proposal is best, we have
>> a
>> > long-standing tradition to immediately relegate them to AUXLANG - which
>> was
>> > split off CONLANG in the late 1990s precisely in order to get such topics
>> > out of CONLANG.  Many people here have had enough of that and don't care
>> > about artificial IALs.
>> >
>> > --
>> > ... brought to you by the Weeping Elf
>> > http://www.joerg-rhiemeier.de/Conlang/index.html
>> > "Bêsel asa Éam, a Éam atha cvanthal a cvanth atha Éamal." - SiM 1:1
>>
>>
>>
>> --
>> Sincerely,
>>          William S. Wright
>>



-- 
Sincerely,
         William S. Wright