[YG Conlang Archives] > [romconlang group] > messages [Date Index] [Thread Index] >
Hi! Mark G writes: >... > "So I think there is nothing at all wrong with a GMP that involves > non-determinism. On the contrary: it makes the design more > naturalistic. Which degree is part of the design goals of your conlang." > > Hmmm, do you mean am I aiming more toward the end of rigidity or > naturalism? Oh, I wanted to say that strict and lax adherence to a single GMP are both feasible. Both kinds of natural languages histories exist. So when putting together the precise design goals of your language, any decision that pleases your taste about the strictness will not prevent it from being a naturally feeling language. >... > If so, I definitely want this to be a naturalistic language-- full > what I love about Indo-European languages, complex conjugations, > abstract declensions, just enough irregularities to make learning the > language a little thought-provoking, etc. etc. Hehe. :-) Þrjótrunn, I'm affraid, has become a monster, grammar-wise. It has a lot of irregular words, to such an extent that I am not sure yet how to classify the words into paradigms. Some very frequent paradigms are quite clear, but there are a lot of pairs of words that are only slightly different, and it remains to be decided whether they are both irregular, one of them irregular, both regular in different classes, or even whether one should be fixed up to match the other. E.g. there are only about 400 nouns now and that's not enough to make a set of, say, 60 paradigms + irregular nouns (that's about the scale for Icelandic which I aim for in my conlang, too (but depending on how you define 'paradigm', you might cut that down to maybe 15 + small variants)). **Henrik