tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8315762734312621987.post6809475082750617883..comments2023-09-29T13:29:43.787+02:00Comments on the Lifestream chronicles: Oil, ink or crayonsYeonnihttp://www.blogger.com/profile/18136059777182142884noreply@blogger.comBlogger5125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8315762734312621987.post-20522451536818194992011-02-08T17:34:37.660+01:002011-02-08T17:34:37.660+01:00Well that's sort of what I'm considering t...Well that's sort of what I'm considering too. Is it more "effective" or "expressive" to have a separate word for "is" so you can say "is *insert adjective here* or not? What I mean is, is there a time when having "is" separate from the adjective it describes is ever useful?Yeonnihttps://www.blogger.com/profile/18136059777182142884noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8315762734312621987.post-43208273695832148952011-02-05T02:59:39.597+01:002011-02-05T02:59:39.597+01:00But what is an effective language? Is it the langu...But what is an effective language? Is it the language which expresses ideas most precisely? Classical Arabic has a level of specificity that makes English seem like cave-man talk - the flip side being a complexity so overwhelming virtually no one can speak it (hence vernacular Arabic). Or is it the greatest semantic content in the smallest number of morphemes? That's a hard thing to optimize, it seems.<br /><br />I have no real input, actually, just curious what would make a language "effective."Dhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09275157437221197646noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8315762734312621987.post-78731294747903129642011-01-30T03:41:37.128+01:002011-01-30T03:41:37.128+01:00Been done (sort of): Lojban. Look it up on wikiped...Been done (sort of): Lojban. Look it up on wikipedia.Riklurthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08615536940608922069noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8315762734312621987.post-70578051360902279042011-01-30T02:06:17.971+01:002011-01-30T02:06:17.971+01:00Would be interesting to make a language that's...Would be interesting to make a language that's entirely to the point, try to make it as effective as possible. There must be some way to test, statistically or something. It wouldn't have to be unimaginative or unpoetic because of that. Just cut out all the unnecessary stuff, somewhat like they did to a small extent when Swedish removed all the conjugations or stuff.Yeonnihttps://www.blogger.com/profile/18136059777182142884noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8315762734312621987.post-68495740628343918052011-01-29T01:38:05.278+01:002011-01-29T01:38:05.278+01:00I've thought some about this as well, and I th...I've thought some about this as well, and I think it comes down to this: <br /><br />Some languages like to add a separate word to express something. Chinese usually does this; "to be" is just an exception where they actually don't. Otherwise they're quite fond of adding "extra" words where Western languages don't, such as the "-ma" particle for "this is a question".<br /><br />Other languages like to modify an existent word to express something. This is, for instance, how most Western languages handle questions: By changing the tone of the question. "Okay." and "Okay?" are both written and pronounced differently. <br /><br />Most languages have a little bit of both. The only thing that's different here is that "to be" is a word in Western languages, whereas it's a modification in Eastern ones; conversely, "this is a question" is a modification in the West, but an additional word in the East.Riklurthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08615536940608922069noreply@blogger.com