Substantial postings about constructed languages and constructed worlds in general. Good place to mention your own or evaluate someone else's. Put quick questions in C&C Quickies instead.
Nortaneous wrote:Yes they have. It's just that they presented it as lessons, instead of a reference grammar.
something of a reference grammar can be found here. instead of clicking any of the "Lein's lesson" links on the sidebar, use Overview 1, 2, and 3, and browse the subsections that appear in the sidebar for them.
<Anaxandridas> How many artists do you know get paid?
<Anaxandridas> Seriously, name five.
Kereb wrote:something of a reference grammar can be found here. instead of clicking any of the "Lein's lesson" links on the sidebar, use Overview 1, 2, and 3, and browse the subsections that appear in the sidebar for them.
The "Studies" part too (no idea why the translator chose to say they're on a "philosophical" level, as opposed to a "more linguistic" one).
(And conversely, we don't care as much about lexicon.)
Wait, we don't? We should! Lexicography and semantics are part of linguistics too after all.
Yes, but he kind of claimed lexicography was everything, and grammar (which he seemed to reduce to morphology) was nothing.
Not everything, but a huge part... The Conlangery Podcast claims it's about "95%" of your language (hence why he said it was going to be awkward).
Well, 95% your language by what?
it's like when people say we're 70% water... by volume? by weight? by number of molecules?
95% of the information in a lang might well be lexicon: take english, for example: you wouldn't take 2000 pages to lay english as she is spoke 95% of the time, but you *would* do so to give an account of the 95% most common words used in it, especially if you weren't going with the
but the problem is that languages are fractal things, or at least fractal-like in complexity: there's always something to be written about every word, something to be discovered about every grammatical construction.
though there might be a bigger infinity of datums about words... just today I think I discovered the difference between refractivo and refractario.
[refractivo is related to refraction, whereas refractario is something that refracts. neat, aye?]
Torco wrote:just today I think I discovered the difference between refractivo and refractario.
[refractivo is related to refraction, whereas refractario is something that refracts. neat, aye?]
I've become wiser. So superficie refractaria but índice refractivo (well, the common word would be índice de refracción but whatever)? Anyways I feel I'd never use refractario, using refractante instead.
Add refrigente to your list. It means how high the índice de refracción is (how fast light travels in it). El agua es más refrigente que el aire.
Torco wrote:just today I think I discovered the difference between refractivo and refractario.
[refractivo is related to refraction, whereas refractario is something that refracts. neat, aye?]
I've become wiser. So superficie refractaria but índice refractivo (well, the common word would be índice de refracción but whatever)? Anyways I feel I'd never use refractario, using refractante instead.
Add refrigente to your list. It means how high the índice de refracción is (how fast light travels in it). El agua es más refrigente que el aire.
refrigente? coolio!
also, never? you mean this sentence
la labor de los oftalmólogos es corregir los defectos refractarios de sus pacientes
is grammatical for you? for me, it's deffo defectos refractivos.
Torco wrote:also, never? you mean this sentence la labor de los oftalmólogos es corregir los defectos refractarios de sus pacientes
is grammatical for you? for me, it's deffo defectos refractivos.
lol xDDD
yes, it's refractivos. The word I say I wouldn't use is precisely refractario.
And the colonial teaches the peninsular about his own language
Torco jumps, goes right through his defense, and dunks it in a n d t h e c r o w d g o e s m a a a a d
Torco wrote:And the colonial teaches the peninsular about his own language
Torco jumps, goes right through his defense, and dunks it in a n d t h e c r o w d g o e s m a a a a d
=P
what do you mean? have you trolled me and it's not refractivo?
(And conversely, we don't care as much about lexicon.)
Wait, we don't? We should! Lexicography and semantics are part of linguistics too after all.
Yes, but he kind of claimed lexicography was everything, and grammar (which he seemed to reduce to morphology) was nothing.
Not everything, but a huge part... The Conlangery Podcast claims it's about "95%" of your language (hence why he said it was going to be awkward).
Who claims this?
Evidence?
I don't buy it. Try having a discussion in a noisy environment, or over a poor telephone connection - most of the words might be misheard or mangled, but a significant portion of the conversation is still understood.
I don't buy it. Try having a discussion in a noisy environment, or over a poor telephone connection - most of the words might be misheard or mangled, but a significant portion of the conversation is still understood.
Rodlox wrote:my hunch:
a) the "welcome to Conlangery" is in Arka.
b) there is a mention of language societies in the non-European(speaking) zone.
I'm probably wrong.
Wrong and wrong.
and (I was) right about being wrong.
Sinjana wrote:
Jipí wrote:
Sinjana wrote:
(And conversely, we don't care as much about lexicon.)
Wait, we don't? We should! Lexicography and semantics are part of linguistics too after all.
Yes, but he kind of claimed lexicography was everything, and grammar (which he seemed to reduce to morphology) was nothing.
Not everything, but a huge part... The Conlangery Podcast claims it's about "95%" of your language (hence why he said it was going to be awkward).
ah, but that's forgetting one thing:
If a troll says a wrong thing, it is just one further weight dunking himself beneath the water.
If a respected expert says a wrong thing, it does not tar him, for his other accomplishments outshine the mistake; the err simply makes him more human.
I don't buy it. Try having a discussion in a noisy environment, or over a poor telephone connection - most of the words might be misheard or mangled, but a significant portion of the conversation is still understood.
I don't buy it. Try having a discussion in a noisy environment, or over a poor telephone connection - most of the words might be misheard or mangled, but a significant portion of the conversation is still understood.
soo?
I don't follow
Lexicons are important, but not 95% important.
There's more to language than words.
I know your point, I don't know how redundancy being absolutely necesary means lexicon has as much, or more, or less, information than grammar.
