On Sun, 06 Jan 2008 00:51:24 -0500, Dana Nutter \ deinx nxtxr
<li_sasxsekREMOVETHIS@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:
>li [Padraic Brown] mi tulis la ...
>
>> On Tue, 25 Dec 2007 22:12:23 -0500, Dana Nutter \ deinx nxtxr
>> <li_sasxsekREMOVETHIS@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:
>>
>> >Speaking of a priori, philosophical languages. I've got one
>> >that's also part loglang with an oligosynthetic vocabulary. I
>> >have a good idea how I want everything structured, but I'm stuck
>> >on labeling the morphemes. At some point recently I've got the
>> >idea to create a basic vocabulary based upon known phonosemantic
>> >universals, or at least strong phonosemantic tendencies across
>> >languages. The lack of available information on the subject has
>> >me stuck right now. So far there are about 5 morph/lex-emes
>> >that are pretty firmly in place like "ma" (mother) and "pa"
>> >(father). I've also added "mai" (this) and "tau" (that) based
>> >upon a some of the information I have been able to find.
>>
>> May or may not be exactly what you're looking for, but you might look
>> into Wadler's "The Origin of Language". His thesis seems to be that
>> all languages are descended from one language and that the traces of
>> this language are still evident in the daughter languages. Whatever
>> the truth of the matter, he does give lots of interesting lists of
>> "tendencies" across a bizarre range of languages.
>>
>> For example: GOD: Teotl (Mex); Ti (China); Teot (Nicar.); Tiw (A.S.);
>> De (Annam); Theos (Gr.); Tei (Japan).
>>
>> GRAIN: Afaro (Guanche); Bar (Slav.); Far (Lat.); Bar (Heb.); Barley
>> (Engl); ****i (Kor.)
>>
>> Even if it's not precisely what you're after, it's an interesting
>> read!
>
>Sounds like it would be interesting. If there are any true
>universals, I'd guess they would have roots in some type of
>human ursprache.
>
>I have since found some more information, but it too is still
>lacking some of the finer details I'd like to see.
>Unfortunately it appears that this is one area that just hasn't
>been explored much. There are some interesting things like
>front vowels meaning "near" or "small", and back vowels meaning
>"far" or "big". Consonants seem to follow a similar model. [b]
>for "round", "bump", etc. [n] for "black", "dark", "no",
>"nothing". Sounds like [pu] or [fu] usually meaning something
>negative (like English "phooey").
Have you devised any kind of list of "universal concepts" that would
require these morphemes?
>
>I've been using what I've found so far to create a chart with
>some basic concepts that's I'm using for the current working
>vocabulary while I do some more homework. This approach is only
>for the most basic vocabulary. For more complicated terms which
>will require a unique root, I'll probably use a label taken
>loosely from a natural language, or maybe a composite like those
>in Lojban.
Not my cup o tea, but it certainly sounds like an interesting project!
I do wish you luck in your quest for the universals.
Padraic
>
>-------------------------------------------------
>deinx nxtxr
>
>LI SASXSEK LATIS. (http://www.nutter.net/sasxsek)
--
Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com
|
