Print

Print


On 2017-03-20, Robert South wrote (excerpt):

> Also finiteness.  I think this is a vitally important selling point.  It
> must be possible to learn the whole language.  There should be an end
> state where nobody who has studied the language longer, or been more
> engaged with developments, will be able to suprirse you with stuff you
> don't know.  And that's why the language should be oligosynethicish, and
> the set of allowed sounds should equal the set of root words.  Which is
> why it must be largely apriori, though it can follow natural language
> where it can (why not?).

> That way a person who has just learned all the basic elements will know
> all the words that might be used by a lifelong speaker, kinda
> theoretically.  [...]           Oligosynthetic languages would have it
> too, many different ways to combine the basic vocabulary to express the
> same idea, but all such expressions would be made of the same elements.
>                                  Being oligosynthetic is itself enough to make
> an artificial language radically different, while also improving
> finiteness, though it adds some to complexity (but on a scale that pales
> in comparison with the learning of vocabulary).

If we are going to consider oligosynthetic auxiliary languages, I 
suppose that Searight's Sona would be about as good a place to start as 
any, although one shortcoming is that materials are mostly available in 
English. I have numerous materials on Sona (including a printable scan 
of "The Book") in my personal webspace at
http://www.panix.com/~bartlett/
also available for mobile devices as
http://www.panix.com/userdirs/bartlett/ .

-- 
Paul Bartlett