Print

Print


On         Mon, 8 Nov 1999 03:05:30 +1100, Robin Gaskell wrote:
 
> At 11:57 31/10/99 -0700, Bob Petry wrote:
> >Charles wrote:
> >
> >> Via Acadon wrote:
 
Sorry, when I first set this address up, I made a
mistake; the above should have said:
"Leo Moser wrote:"
 
> >> > What we think of as "classical Chinese" is a Han
> >> > dynasty conlang of sorts. Since the characters are
> >> > semantically packed, it can be very epigramatic.
 
> >> Few word many idea?
 
Yep.
 
> >Fu mot ud im? [Ti es li metode de "World Speedwords"]
> >
> *   And that might be the point: how many ideas can you squeeze onto
> the head of a pin?
>
>    With a few words we might convey many ideas.  .... Eng.
>
>    Ko oligo verbi na pote expresi poli idea.  ....... Glo.
>
> I, personally, go for the less cryptic, and have got used to having a
> Subject and a Verb in my sentence.
>
> Saluta,
>   Robin G.
>     P.S. Is there a case for saying mellower, softer sentences with the
odd
> modifier here and there are less abrupt, and easier on the brain?
 
Yes, in a sense I agree. Chinese often does this as
well as does English. Both CAN be epigramatic however.
 
`Nuff said.
 
Leo J. Moser
[log in to unmask]
 
 
 
 
________________________________________________________________
Get FREE voicemail, fax and email at http://voicemail.excite.com
Talk online at http://voicechat.excite.com