= 27d567bc2d48d9f40e9ccc20ea370b15)
I do have a conlang draft. A few thoughts based on my conlang thinking:
Loglan/Lojban is a language were math was an afterthought. That's likely mistake. If you look at a concept like grandfather, using the word "grand" doesn't make much sense. I think it's better to say something like father-one for grandfather, father-two for great-grandfather. The same way the boss of your boss should be boss-one. Having a grammer in which relationships can be expressed well is very valuable.
I think that loglan attempt to build on existing roots of the widely spoken languages is flawed because it allows less freedom organizing the language effectively. It would be good to have a lot of concepts with 3 letters instead of 5.
In my language draft I started to take concept of graph theory for naming relationships (the structure of the words matters but the actual word is provisional):
bei node in same graph
cai node parent
doi node children
beiq relative
caiq parent
doiq son/daughter
bei person employed in the same company
caiß boss (person with authority to order)
doiß direct (person who can be ordered)
Once you understand that structure and learn the new word "fuiq" for sibling, you can guess that a direct coworker is called fuiß. Of the in a graph notes that share the same parent note are "fui".
I like grouping concepts this way where I can go from parent to son/daughter simply by going one forward in the alphabet and replace "c" with "d" and "a" with "o" ("i" get's skipped because the word ends in "i").
I did use a similar principle for naming numbers:
ba 0
ce 1
di 2
fo 3
gu 4
ha 5
je 6
For the number I also gave adding a "q" meaning. It turn the number into base 16. Base 16 numbers are later quite useful if you want to make an expression like north-east. At the moment pilots use phrases based on the clock to navigate: "There's a bird at 2 o'clock." It's much better to bake numbers more centrally into the language.
In case you haven't seen it http://selpahi.de/ToaqAlphaPrimer.html is a nice draft for a new language. I like how the language makes every sentence end in an evidential. In it I think he makes a mistake that he doesn't use capital letters but non-asci character instead.
I think that it's great that his language doesn't follow the Lojban place system but uses prepositions like a normal language.
= b715d02e85f7b3b4ae65ca3d3e450868)
Subscribe to RSS Feed
= f037147d6e6c911a85753b9abdedda8d){kind=logo}
There are languages like Aymara that incorporate evidentiality, that is, you can't express a thought without also saying how you know it. This forces the speaker to be always aware of the degree of certainty of every statement.
I have a number of evidential categories available for use, as well as some relating to certainty, which I view as a separate issue (source versus certainty). But I hadn't put any thought into making their use mandatory. There are certainly advantages to making it impossible to hide information by making the inclusion of some information carrying categories necessary. But it seems to me that not all possible information is going to be relevant to all possible statements or circumstances, and that forcing everyone to always include evidentials, even when they aren't relevant, will carry a high price. There are probably aspects of speech other than evidentials that it would be advantageous to include in some circumstances. If the grammar requires that they all be included in every statement, then every statement will be overcrowded with irrelevant add-ons. Also, there's the problem of enforcement. If, for example, you require that each statement end with an evidential, then what will stop irritated users from simply omitting it? If you create a system of grammar such that each of the add-ons must, unavoidably, be merged into the words, perhaps by some mechanism similar to verb conjugation, then how many people would volunteer to use such an inconveniently complex language? In order to be successful, a constructed language must be designed such that many people will want to use it. Only a few have reached that peak, such as Esperanto, and Klingon.