Sender | Message | Time |
---|---|---|
12 Jun 2021 | ||
إيه، نحنا فاهمين آلريدي، إنت أشطر مننا بالنسبة لللغات | 16:50:29 | |
Aŭ en pli simpla lingvo, ni jam komprenas vian opinion. | 16:51:04 | |
So we note: Kotava has a "universal" phonological system of 25 sounds/phonemics/letters. . It was not explained whether the word universal means "every language has these sounds", "no language has more", "no language has less" or whatever. Fact is, there is no such thing as a universal phonological system. And as for the phonemic sounds, Pirahã has 10, Hawaiian has 13, Japanese 21, Esperanto 25, Volapük 25, Spanish 29, French 35, English 36, German 40, Russian 37-46 (depending on categorization), Chinese 45, Italian 50, and ǃXóõ has 164. | 16:54:57 | |
I must confess, it is interesting to see that Kotava and Volapük have the same number of phonemic sounds (alas, not the same sounds). | 16:56:39 | |
I find it very unnerving that all chapters are titled using self-applauding terms instead of real information ("rich, differenced and extensible lexicon" etc. Claims like "Kotava is practically unlimitedly extensible" "Even when totally isolated, a word can be understood without precisions." "Invariability of nouns. Kotava doesn't have any declension" "Absence of gender." "Simple verbal system. Only 3 tenses" etc. are so useless. Every auxlang is "unlimitedly extensible", understanding an isolated verb would not help understanding the sentence it was isolated from, and knowing tempus, aspect, mood, person etc. of an isolated verb is a main feature of latin, lithuanian and sanskrit. But whether this would be an advantage is a matter of opinion. The Invariability of nouns is a standard feature of any auxlang I ever learned (eo, ido, vp, ...) and of all really isolating languages like Chinese (but not always 100% perfectly done). The same is true for absence of gramnatical gender or only three tenses. Most auxlangs have it this way, with some variations and modifications (eo has a simple 3-tensesh-system and allows for a more precise and elaborated 9-tenses/aspects-combination, which is ignored by most speakers, but helpful when needed, and there are some lingos without a grammatical time system at all). | 17:17:58 | |
First four chapters: Not one impressive or surprising feature. But at least one somewhat maybe special one: from the examples in chapter 3 I get the impression that the affix-based derivational system is even richer than that of Esperanto or Volapük. Some far-fetched examples reminded me to Ithkuil. | 17:22:36 | |
Chapter 5: Monosemy! Very good. I like that. But it is a very hard thing to do... | 17:42:37 | |
An average Esperanto noun has 2 different meanings. Some have 3, 4, 5. An average German noun has 5. An average English noun, 7. An average English uninflected word form, 12. An average Chinese, more than 30. | 17:46:59 | |
That makes translating, be it human or machine, so difficult. Many declensions, complex conjugation... difficult for humans, but no prob for machines. However, polysemic words are a killer. Without context, it is wild guessing. With context, it is educated guessing. | 17:50:17 | |
Monosemic words means: knowing, not guessing. But it is more difficult to achieve as most people would think. What is a meaning? How to map words in languages with different "meaning-areas"? Etc. | 17:54:10 | |
Kaj tiom plu da vortoj por lerni. | 17:55:16 | |
Jes, sed se ĉiu vorto estas unusenca, la komunikado iĝas pli preciza kaj la lingvotradukado treege pli facila, almenaŭ en unu direkto (de la unusignifa al ka plursignifa lingvo). | 18:01:34 | |
Plej rapide lernebla estas la ŝtrumpflingvo. Mi ŝtrumpfas la ŝtrumpfon, ĉu vi kunŝtrumpfas? Nur unu radiko por ĉiuj adjektivoj, substantivoj kaj verboj. Kiom facile, kiom rapide lernebla! Sed la kompreneblo de ĉiu diro kaj teksto iĝos preskaŭ nula. | 18:06:11 | |
the exclamation point is supposed to be in this link https://en.wikibooks.org/wiki/Glidis,_o_Jonathan! the beginning of a translation of Salute Jonathan (a natural acquisition book) | 18:33:03 | |
Chapter 6:
| 18:34:51 | |
In reply to @ulriko:matrix.orgall language used analogy. it’s unavoidable imo | 18:35:06 | |
Yes. I do not count metaphoric usage and analogy as polysemic. | 18:35:58 | |
In reply to @ulriko:matrix.orgkotava uses many non-standard grammatical terms. it’s kinda like lojban in that way | 18:37:14 | |
Ulriko: check out the volapük book in link pls | 18:37:43 | |
https://en.m.wikibooks.org/wiki/Glidis,_o_Jonathan!/Kapit_1 | 18:42:06 | |
that should work | 18:42:10 | |
In reply to @cale2:matrix.orgIt's one thing creating your own grammar terms, it's another, using standard terms wrong. | 18:43:10 | |
In reply to @cale2:matrix.orgLooks very promising! If continued this way, it will become a very good primer. | 18:49:24 | |
13 Jun 2021 | ||
i made this neat little tool for a friend https://trosel.github.io/RootGenerator/ | 22:40:31 | |
kind of a cool way to test phonotactics i guess | 22:42:37 | |
A similar tool I’ve used before: https://www.zompist.com/gen.html | 23:59:44 | |
14 Jun 2021 | ||
oh wow, i had no idea hahah | 00:15:39 | |
What is this picture about? | 05:02:00 | |
That's the cover image of the Language Constructor Kit, a book on creating conlangs by Mark Rosenfelder. Its how I got into conlanging, personally | 13:47:11 | |
Would you recommend it to an experienced linguist or is it much about the basics of grammar and phonetics for people being fascinated by conlanging, but so far not knowing what a transitive verb is? | 15:38:25 |