Print

Print


At 06:52 AM 11/15/98 -0700, Mike Adams wrote:
>I think basically a Conlang is a lingo that has normally one or a small
group of speakers, limited vocabulary, and is constructed. Something like
how Klingon, Esperanto, Lojlan/Loglab(sp) were at one time.  [ ........  ]
>
>This leads to my second question/idea. What effects so far has the con/aux
lingos had on the truely natlangs as well as the constructed natlangs
(Esperanto and like especially)..
>
*   An excellent, but unexpected question.
    So, here goes.  When I first started running the Glosa paradigms
through the brain-box, I considered it would be all one-way.  I would be
adding a new language onto the existing collection of thoughts and
associations, and this would allow me to say  what I normally said in
English, in another language.
    But gradually, sneakily, I found that the Glosa rationalisations were
creeping into my thinking about language, in general, and were even
affecting my usage of English.
  . I found that more adverbs were cropping up before the verbs, and I
didn't care!
  . The need for accuracy in Glosa - generally thinking about what I said,
before saying it - caused me to review my usage of English: this
increasingly seemed "sloppy" by contrast with the crispness of Glosa.
  . I found that the 'Head Final' structure of Glosa linked up with what I
was learning about *Functional Grammar* in English, and I became much more
aware of my use of Grammar in English.
  . With Glosa's apparent open plan syntax and lack of P-o-S markers, I
became acutely aware of questions like, "When was a word an 'adverb' and
when was it an 'auxiliary verb'?"  This rebounded on my use of words in
English, and I became much more aware of the actual functions of the words
in their sentences, both in Glosa and English.
  . With Glosa's claim to being a "concept language" I started thinking
more about the semantic side of language, and this also caused me to look
more deeply into the actual meanings of the words I was using in English.
  . When speaking English, now, after having experienced the freedom of
Glosa's unmarked lexicon, I am much more inclined to "noun" a verb or
"verb" a noun.  The rigid rules on usage, and the functional non-usage
areas, seem to have melted away, and I apply words as my intuition takes me.
  . With the open-plan appearance of Glosa, I reviewed the need to use
punctuation functionally as a serious indicator of the structure within
sentences.  This caused me to look afresh at the way I used punctuation in
English.
  . Even more - owing to there seeming to be a shortage in the supply of a
range of punctuation markers - I started experimenting with lesser used
non-literal marks in Glosa, and also in English.  The idea of suspense ...
through using the standard three dots, also seemed to suggest the
possibility of using an abbreviated form .. the two-dot gasp.
  . In short, as a result of reading and writing Glosa, I moved away from
the idea of Formal Grammar to that of Functional Grammar; correspondingly,
I found this shift to be productive in my thinking about English, as well.
 
Thank You Mike for a stimulating question.
 
Saluta,
 Robin
 
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
 ROBIN GASKELL: [log in to unmask]      WEBPAGE: www.zeta.org.au/~rgaskell
 GLOSALIST MAILING LIST:   Majordomo reads your email address automatically.
        To:     [log in to unmask]
              subscribe glosalist
 
 GLOSALIST ARCHIVES:  http://members.xoom.com/ailanto/glosa/index.htm
 
 BOOKS ON GLOSA:-  Blackwells Internet Bookshop
www.blackwell.co.uk/bookshops/
                   Internet Bookshop  [log in to unmask]