Recent Posts

Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 10
1
You say that [rar] is “animal”; the only two particles beginning with r are 00001 rezy and 00101 Rhenzhwy. And even then, none of the words you gave for animals contain rar. Your word for “I” (dhil) begins with “dh”, and the only particle that begins with “dh” is 01101 dhiindhwo. So again, we cannot figure out the interpretation of your symbolology.

You say that “each different particle is pronounced differently depending on its place in a syllable”, without telling us how syllables are formed in the language (what are the possible “places” in a syllable?) . You also say that for 00001, “the IPA for the four first levels of sophistication would be: r/e/z/-ɪ”: what are “levels of sophistication”? Does that relate to syllables, or does that mean that there is an additional variable, “sophistication”, and you have to determine how sophisticated a word is to know how to pronounce it?

I suggest that you give an explicit account of how to reduce a couple of simple sentences to your primitives: “I see the dog” and “He bought the knife”. That means providing the phonetic form, giving it an analysis in terms of the 32 elements, plus explaining the rules for assigning level of sophistication and syllabification, not to mention order of elements (if order is distinctive). You mash the particles together without spaces in some cases but use spaces in some instances, which suggests that the 32 elements are actually not words, they are morphemes (which are combined without spaces); and then, the resulting words can also be combined into sentences (by some system of rules, so that dhil dhwo(o)lk'znv gzyawrk'tholk'bwaylsh'kumth'rar is how you say “I looked at a car”, rather than dhwo(o)lk'znv dhil gzyawrk'tholk'bwaylsh'kumth'rar or gzyawrk'tholk'bwaylsh'kumth'rar dhil dhwo(o)lk'znv). You are using space as an additional higher-order organizing element. You could economize further by adding “:” as a high-order element, so that the first 16 elements could be “bare” and the second 16 could be one of the first 16 preceded by “:”. But you can do that again, by introducing “!” as an element, then you would only need 8 basic elements, and use combinations of these higher-order elements to expand that to 32. As you can guess, 8 becomes 4 becomes 2 with the addition of only two more high-order elements (let’s say “|” and “^”).
2
Because it's fun, I'm going to list a whole load of Truespeak exclamations, simply because I can.

wiiylsh - Over here!
iiwnmd - No, I don't want to interact with you.
e'uun - Hello (very informal and even slightly insulting, like "'sup?").
(o)e(o)z - Hello (more formal, up-beat and joyful).
am - Hello (another interesting variation, which could be interpreted as "peace to [you]").
'Raym - Hello (the more formal version of "am", "peace to you").
'Riyldh - F*** you (pretentious and condescending).
il'dhiil - F*** you (just plain old rude).
il'iin'iil - F*** you (worse than the two above, and very lowly to say (it makes you look dumb, too)).
ildh'kiil - F*** you (a more personal and hurtful thing to say).
ii'dhiil - You're great!
'Riiydh - You're great (more formal)!
iidh'kiil - You're great (say this variation to make someone's day)!
ii - Awesome (don't use this in any situation other than very informal ones)!
iik - Wonderful (more formal than the one above, yet still unacceptable at workplace-level places)!
iind - Hey, everyone (used to get attention from a crowd)!
'nm - Yes (just one way out of many).
iwk - Yes (somewhat like saying "not no", and rather formal).
i - No (most informal way, rather rude and lowly for nearly all situations).
it - No (just a bit more formal than "i", you'd use this with your friends and with non-authoritative family members).
iwt - No (the generally accepted form of "no", and formal enough for parents and strangers, yet not people you're trying to impress).

As a general rule of thumb, you wouldn't use exclamations around more formal environments, since they are always one level less sophisticated than the actual highest level of sophistication within them (an exclamation containing three levels is already using forth-level phonetics).
3
I've lately made a post on this site about a langauge I've created, this post is just a follow-up. Read the previous one if you want some background: http://linguistforum.com/linguist's-lounge/so-i've-created-a-very-functional-language-with-only-32-words/

Here is the next level of sophistication, the fifth, of Truespeak pronunciation.

XXXX0 - The consonant at the beginning is pronounced with the lips stretched. It's a subtle difference, but a noticable one.

XXXX1 - The opening consonant is pronounced with the lips puckered.

XXX0X - The opening consonant is "soft", meaning that no air is pushed out with the sound (it's a little difficult to explain how this works with IPA or any equivalent of which I know).

XXX1X - The opening consonant is "heavy", meaning that as the sound comes out, so does a gust of air.

The best way I can explain this is that the "force" given to the consonant is from the inside mouth in XXX0X's case, and with the lungs in XXX1X's case.

XX0XX - Similar to XXXX0, only with the finishing consonant.

XX1XX - Similar to XXXX1, only with the finishing consonant.

X0XXX - (Lack of X1XXX's effect, see below.)

X1XXX - The finishing consonant has a z before it if it is voiced, and an s if not (think "ak" vs "ask").

0XXXX - (Lack of 1XXXX's effect, see below.)

1XXXX - If the first particle in the syllable is a 0XXXX particle, then the opening consonant becomes the fricative equivalent of what would normally be a 1XXXX particle (t becomes ths, th becomes thsh; m, r, h, and rh are special cases that become st, zd, sht and zhd respectively). If the first particle in the syllable is a 1XXXX particle, then the opening consonant gains the fricative equivalent of what would normally be a 1XXXX particle (ts becomes tths, ksh becomes kkhsh; s, z, sh, and zh are special cases that become sk, zg, shk and zhg respectively).

Another thing worth mentioning is the fact that when speaking, one can "start" the syllable from the vowel to imply that the syllable is an exclamation. An example would be "egh", which could be interpreted as "Well!", or "What joy!" rather than "happiness/love" ("edh" can be "Hello!"; "o" can resemble a question mark in many situations; "av" can mean "Oh, alright then." [understanding]; "awv" can be "Excuse me?/I don't understand."; et cetera, et cetera).
4
Indeed, as Panini pointed out, you have designed a way to (potentially) analyze everything, but not to easily refer to specific things. Your system is perhaps better for clearly showing your reasoning about certain ideas and to avoid relying on assumptions, but it is entirely inefficient when it comes to simply referring to a category like "tree" or "dog" or "aardvark". Natural languages typically put more emphasis on actually referring to things, and less to being analytical, and it is essentially unimaginable this would actually work for people in real life. The obvious result is that after a minimal amount of usage it would start to develop idioms and then longer words to refer to specific concepts. And it would no longer work as proposed, because that's not how human languages work.

Something you might enjoy reading about is Ithkuil, which is a constructed language proposed for some of the same reasons that might be motivating you:
https://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2012/12/24/utopian-for-beginners

I think the concept is interesting. However, personally I would actually prefer for all of those grammatical devices to be optional so that we can choose whether to express ourselves clearly or in general terms. That would be a very powerful language, allowing us to express ourselves as we want to, rather than making us be explicit about every detail. Of course your proposal goes farther than that, breaking down all concepts into your few basic words, but Ithkuil is clearly more functional because it does have as many words as needed, but modifies them grammatically to express nuance and so forth.

The thing with the language is that, usually, the specific things should be understood from context rather than it be required to describe them entirely. For example, the sentence "A deer crashed into my car." could be made simpler by saying "An animal crashed into my thing/me.", which would still adequately explain what happened, given that there was some context. Even if there wasn't, and I needed to describe the specific thing, many things can still be referred to with only a few syllables (tree - "pnzh'kemv"; dog - "rarmp'ruun").

As for that other language, I haven't heard of it until now, yet it sounds rather interesting. For certain, it seems more complicated and difficult than Truespeak, and to my personal taste (feel free to disagree), less elegant. No doubt, however, it is both more practical and useful, regardless of the lack of inherent simplicity.
5
Mind you, the names of many of these different creatures come from other languages, meaning that loanwords ("dik'd(o)iwk") would usually suffice to describe them.
So the claim is not that you have a maximum of 32 words – you can have any number of words in the language – and the claim really comes down to saying that it is possible to express any idea with just those 32 words, but for convenience you can draw on other words (borrowed from other languages). This raises the question whether "A hartebeest looked at the dikdik" could also be classified as an utterance of your language, one that uses a lot of loan words. You have a long expression that translates as "the four-legged animal named "Gerenuk", but why not simply call it "ge're'nuk'"?

Perhaps the answers would be clearer if we knew how to say a few much simpler words: "cat", "dog", "hand", "foot". Not just "what is the final word?", but "how to you reduce the output to the 32 basic words? I can't make any sense of the notation
'00001 - r (English)/e ("egg")/z ("foxes", "pose")/-y ("boil", "mile", "eye", "kind", et cetera)'. Are you trying to also devise a spelling system free of standard phonetic conventions? That is, what is the actual IPA content of your particle 00001?
Well, first, the matter about the Gerenuk is that though we can just say "ge're'nyu(o)k", it would be less clear as to what we mean. If we wanted to ensure that we knew very well what we were talking about, we'd use the longer term. But then, here we get to an interesting aspect of this language: both are valid. One of the things I set out to do when creating this language was offer a way that allowed everyone to talk in a slightly different manner (refered to as their "prose"), to which they would get used and which anyone could understand. Of course, this wouldn't last as a natural language, due to how language works, but the basis is still there. Think of Hebrew, a language that passed a similar process to what Truespeak would pass.

Now regarding the matter of pronunciation, each different particle is pronounced differently depending on its place in a syllable. In the case of 00001, the IPA for the four first levels of sophistication would be: r/e/z/-ɪ.

The spelling system is entirely phonetic, meaning that "fayr" is indeed pronounced like "fire" in English.
6
Linguist's Lounge / Re: What types of words are time referents
« Last post by Daniel on November 20, 2017, 09:10:12 AM »
Lots of content words relate to time. But that's not the same thing as grammatical tense.

(To be clear "ex-president" is also not really grammatical tense, so that's not real nominal tense in English. But that's just a rough approximation analogy to some languages such as Guarani in South America that really do have nominal tense grammatically.)
7
Linguist's Lounge / Re: What types of words are time referents
« Last post by Audiendus on November 20, 2017, 08:16:18 AM »
Some English adjectives indicate tense or aspect, such as 'past', 'present', 'future', 'former' and 'current'.

Then there are temporal prefixes such as 'pre', 'post' and 'proto'.
8
Linguist's Lounge / Re: What types of words are time referents
« Last post by Daniel on November 20, 2017, 04:06:42 AM »
In English, generally time (tense, or aspect) is only marked on verbs.

When other words seem to have similar suffixes, that is because they are used as derivational suffixes to derive an adjective or noun from a verb. (-ing derives both adjectives and nouns from verbs; and -ed/-en, the past participle, derives adjective forms from verbs. Note that sometimes they still function like verbs as in complex tenses like "was eating".)

There are, however, some languages that do have real tense marking on nouns. You can read about it here:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nominal_TAM

The closest parallel in English would be expressions like "ex-wife" or "ex-president" (past), vs. "future-present" or "president-elect" (future). We rarely use expressions like that (although "ex-" is not so uncommon).

As for adjectives, there are many languages that do not fully distinguish between adjectives and verbs. So if you find a language with a "past tense adjective" it is probably just a past tense verb with an English translation as an adjective. Imagine if "green" is a verb meaning "to be green", something like "The leaf greens" (=is green). I don't know of languages that have something like "adjectival tense" when adjectives are not like verbs. Maybe some languages could also use the nominal tense marking on adjectives, like "The ex-green leaf"? I'm not sure about that.
9
Phonetics and Phonology / Re: A question about p and b
« Last post by Daniel on November 20, 2017, 04:02:07 AM »
In Linguistics, we use the terms "voiceless" and "voiced".

"Strong and weak energetic flow of air" is not a meaningful expression, unless you define it. I think we should prefer standard terms unless there is a reason to make a new one.

Note that technically the distinction in English is closer to "aspirated" (P) vs. "unaspirated" (B), although we often use the terminology interchangeably when there is just a two-way contrast.
(The phonetic difference is that in Spanish there is a real voicing distinction, without any aspiration; and in English there is a real aspiration difference, without any actual voicing during the consonant. Some languages have 3-or-more-way splits, so that distinction would be important. But for English it is common, if confusing, to just say "voiced" vs. "voiceless".)

More technically you can look up Voice Onset Time:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Voice_onset_time
(That allows for a three-way distinction: voiceless aspirated, voiceless unaspirated, voiced unaspirated.)
10
Morphosyntax / Re: What is "plus" as a part of speech?
« Last post by Daniel on November 20, 2017, 03:58:37 AM »
Labels like "conjunction" or "preposition" do not have inherent meaning without a specific definition (either arbitrary or defined within a theory). So it depends on how you analyze them.

But in general, I would say that "plus" is more like a preposition than a conjunction because the agreement is singular:
Two plus two equals four.
Two and two equal four.

Another argument that could be made is that it is a sort of metalinguistic structure that doesn't exactly play by the rules of normal syntax. It's not necessarily a natural part of language but something that comes out of mapping mathematics onto spoken English so it might not really follow general English rules. But it seems to work out at least superficially like a regular preposition, right?
Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 10