zompist bboard

WE ARE MOVING - see Ephemera
It is currently Thu Jul 19, 2018 12:37 am

All times are UTC - 6 hours [ DST ]




Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 11 posts ] 
Author Message
PostPosted: Thu Nov 23, 2017 12:22 pm 
Niš
Niš

Joined: Thu May 26, 2016 6:53 pm
Posts: 11
...

_________________
toki! mi nimi li Sajiman Petu. mi olin toki en sitelen en Toki Pona.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu Nov 23, 2017 4:08 pm 
Smeric
Smeric
User avatar

Joined: Sat Jul 19, 2008 1:55 am
Posts: 1542
Location: Vancouver, British Columbia / Colombie Britannique, Canada
A grammar needs examples that use part of the lexicon.

An entry in the lexicon is often not complete without information about grammar.

Why not both at the same time?

_________________
ZBB Conlang Index (check first post)


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri Nov 24, 2017 9:16 am 
Lebom
Lebom

Joined: Fri Feb 06, 2015 5:21 am
Posts: 126
I don't think it's possible to make a "good" conlang without iterating between the two.

Without a lexicon, you can't really make sentences or check how various affixes react to their respective roots. Without grammar, you have no working derivational morphology and your lexicon can only be very rudimentary.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri Nov 24, 2017 3:20 pm 
Sanci
Sanci
User avatar

Joined: Sat Jul 05, 2008 1:43 pm
Posts: 33
Location: in the middle of madness
I can only agree with the posts above and would like to add that, given that you derive your conlang from a protolang, also sound changes go hand in hand with grammar and lexicon.

However, it's still possible to toy around with first random words, ideas, prototypes in the form of word roots without paying too much attention to grammar. Sooner or later you will have to deal with mentioned elements though, it's inevidable. If you plan to design your very first conlang I recommend reading various tutorials/howtos first, like the language construction kit, it may be very helpful to get a grip of it.

Good luck.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri Nov 24, 2017 6:14 pm 
Lebom
Lebom
User avatar

Joined: Wed Dec 14, 2011 1:04 pm
Posts: 94
In a priori languages (sometimes called philosophical languages) the system is prior, no need lexicon...
In fact no need to lexicon at all...

_________________
have a pic for the day...


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sat Nov 25, 2017 8:55 am 
Smeric
Smeric
User avatar

Joined: Thu Oct 29, 2015 6:44 am
Posts: 1998
Location: suburbs of Mrin
That's a posteriori "from the later", which means it is based off of a natural language. a priori means "from the former", but it refers to languages which are not based off of currently existing ones (song pre-existing lexicon). Many conlangs are in between the two extremes, but they tend to be labeled by the extreme their closer to. If the phonology or orthography is based on a real language it usually is considered to not count as a posteriori - the influence has to be in syntax, morphology and/or lexicon. When I use the terms, I usually refer specifically to the basis of the lexicon, but I've found that other people have broader definitions.

_________________
ìtsanso, God In The Mountain, may our names inspire the deepest feelings of fear in urkos and all his ilk, for we have saved another man from his lies! I welcome back to the feast hall kal, who will never gamble again! May the eleven gods bless him!
kårroť


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sun Nov 26, 2017 4:02 pm 
Lebom
Lebom
User avatar

Joined: Wed Dec 14, 2011 1:04 pm
Posts: 94
In those a priori (philosophical) languages, 1sense=1sign=1sound...
The system is the triple equality, you can work about it using meaning or writing or phonology...
The lexicon is the product...

_________________
have a pic for the day...


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sun Nov 26, 2017 4:21 pm 
Smeric
Smeric
User avatar

Joined: Thu Apr 25, 2013 4:48 am
Posts: 2144
Location: Britannia
Nobody uses "a priori" to mean a philosophical language, but rather as a conlang that isn't derived from a natlang (though the precise details do vary)


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sun Nov 26, 2017 4:34 pm 
Lebom
Lebom
User avatar

Joined: Wed Dec 14, 2011 1:04 pm
Posts: 94
All the pre-internet books did...
But the acceleration of the sliding of meaning is not the subject of the post ...
Let's talk, if you want, about philosophical language (even if scientifical would be more appropriate)...
Those are centered on the production of lexicon, but no lexicon is really required to make the job...

_________________
have a pic for the day...


Last edited by xxx on Sun Nov 26, 2017 5:26 pm, edited 1 time in total.

Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sun Nov 26, 2017 5:26 pm 
Smeric
Smeric
User avatar

Joined: Thu Apr 25, 2013 4:48 am
Posts: 2144
Location: Britannia
I have no idea how you got the impression that Wikipedia claims what you say it does, all it says is that philosophical languages are a subset of a priori languages.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sun Nov 26, 2017 5:35 pm 
Lebom
Lebom
User avatar

Joined: Wed Dec 14, 2011 1:04 pm
Posts: 94
We'll have to open a new thread for that...

_________________
have a pic for the day...


Top
 Profile  
 
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 11 posts ] 

All times are UTC - 6 hours [ DST ]


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Google [Bot] and 2 guests


You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot post attachments in this forum

Search for:
Jump to:  
Powered by phpBB® Forum Software © phpBB Group