[YG Conlang Archives] > [katanda group] > messages [Date Index] [Thread Index] >


[Date Prev] [Date Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next]

Design Philsophy



Reading the Lexical Semantics essay got me thinking about
philophies of design for loglangs and interlangs (katanda
being both of these).

In all the various sketches for loglangs that I've made over
the years, one principle is pretty constant: That the language
should not force the user to include particular information in
their utterances.

Esperanto, for instance, has no way to avoid including
mention of tense and aspect. The verb suffixes are
mandatory, so the user can't avoid telling the listener
about when the described events occured.

Most proposed auxlangs make an obligatory distinction
of number in their nouns (and usually adjectives).

English has two voices - active and passive - which indicate
the relative importance of subject, object, and oblique cases.
So if the speaker wants to (say) make the instrument of an
action the most important of the noun phrases, and omit
the patient altogether (as unimportant, obvious, or unknown),
they can only do it by cumbersome circumlocution and
idiom.

More than that, there is no way of simply omitting information
about ranking of case roles. Even in Katanda, there is
always a ranking order (given by the voice changing morphemes),
whether the speaker wants one or not.

If I had the time and energy to design an interlang, I'd allow
for constructions that expressed the following:

* Agent does something unspecified to an unknown patient,
using a coconut.

* A coconut is thrown in a street, the street being very
important, and the unknown agent more important than
the coconut.

* An act of throwing occurs, beginning in the future
and continuing.

* On tuesday, in the street, with a coconut, in the rain,
something will happen, resulting in a broken window.

No doubt Katanda can handle all such constructions, but
some more easily than others, because some arguments
are expected as core arguments, and others are not.

I suppose what I'm asking is: Why does Katanda have
core arguments at all?



--
Kapitano