Print

Print


They reckon that P.I.E. had about the same number of homonyns as modern English. I found this on the internet ...

https://books.google.com.ph/books?id=lzilBQAAQBAJ&pg=PT182&lpg=PT182&dq=homonyms+in+Proto+Indo+European&source=bl&ots=Zn-RScqvT5&sig=akwN4wPxlt6xlc5TkIaFF8exs24&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwi278vrxNnXAhWBlpQKHXL5A0gQ6AEIMDAC#v=onepage&q=homonyms%20in%20Proto%20Indo%20European&f=false <https://books.google.com.ph/books?id=lzilBQAAQBAJ&pg=PT182&lpg=PT182&dq=homonyms+in+Proto+Indo+European&source=bl&ots=Zn-RScqvT5&sig=akwN4wPxlt6xlc5TkIaFF8exs24&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwi278vrxNnXAhWBlpQKHXL5A0gQ6AEIMDAC#v=onepage&q=homonyms in Proto Indo European&f=false>

But it is just an accident of history that P.I.E. became an Ursprache : it just so happened that this group of speakers developed the know-how to live off the grass-lands.

Of course in a conworld it is perfectly feasable to posit a “perfect” Urspache.


> On Nov 25, 2017, at 10:53 AM, C. Brickner <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
> 
> I avoid homonyms in Senjecas. In its conworld Senjecas is the first language, the Ursprache. I should think that homonyms don't develop until a language develops and splits into daughter languages or borrows words from other languages.
> Charlie
> 
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: Jeffrey Brown <[log in to unmask]>
> To: [log in to unmask]
> Sent: Fri, 24 Nov 2017 12:39:43 -0500 (EST)
> Subject: Homonyms
> 
> Do you have homonyms in your conlang?
> I noticed that I was avoiding creating a new word that was homonymous to an
> existing one in my conlang.
> Then, I realized: Natlangs have homonyms. Why not conlangs? So, I stopped
> avoiding them.
> Except for auxlangs, I cannot see any reason to avoid homonyms, especially
> as it may increase the naturalism of an artlang.
> What do all y'all think?