August 20th, 2012
|qiihoskeh||07:57 pm - C2 grammar|
I have a short grammar of my latest sketch (not naturalistic) at
I really want to get feedback as to whether the explanations are understandable or not, especially the tense and aspect information, which is sort of scattered.
There's no phonology; suggestions are welcome.
Also, the section on Pronouns in Reported Speech may be of interest.
|Date:||August 21st, 2012 09:04 am (UTC)|| |
First reaction: Verbal comprehension runs up against dyslexia.
Second reaction: Who are the people who speak this language, Unix programmers? Seriously, is this a language meant to be spoken to anyone or just written, or is it naturally trnasmitted by packet or code? Maybe this is why I never became a computer nerd.
Is it the wording of the explanations that's incomprehensible, or the language itself, or both?
I don't know who speaks it; your ideas are being taken under consideration. The ASCII is possibly a substitute for a logographic script.
|Date:||August 21st, 2012 07:52 pm (UTC)|| |
FOR ME, I approach languages from practical use, i.e., here's how to say this or that, v. what the word parts are called, which lost me even when learning English in grammar school. Charts don't help me understand a language, the actual words and conjugations do.
I ask who speaks the language becuase that usually indicates where the structure and sensibilities lie for its use and understanding, e.g. the stereotypical 40 Eskimo words for "snow".
I wish people would stop with that tired "Eskimo" trope
. Even if you're deliberately using it as a stereotype and not intending to imply that it's true, many people will still take it that way. And that's just for the lexicon - the structure of a language's grammar very, very rarely has anything at all to do with the environment or culture of the people that speak it.
Intriguing, though once a phonology is developed for it it may feel more natural as a language.
If you don't have any substantial phonotactic restrictions on root forms, I'd suggest you base your consonant phonology on continuants and fricatives. That way there don't have to be any physical barriers to placing particular phonemes together when your roots are synthesised - the phones [f] [n] [s] [r] can go together in any arbitrary order and still be relatively easy to pronounce in a string (e.g. [rfns], [snfr], [srnf], [fnsr], [nrfs], etc. etc.) where plosives like [t] [k] [b] [p] would be more problematic.