nimi sin sin (eĉ plu novaj vortoj, even more new words)
Re: nimi sin sin (eĉ plu novaj vortoj, even more new words)
And the already redundant pair 'ilo/kepeken'
Re: nimi sin sin (eĉ plu novaj vortoj, even more new words)
But if we hypothetically removed ilo, then "pi kepeken" would imply something stative, like tool, instrument. Right now, "pi kepeken" means something verb-y like usage or using.
Removing words by decree is far more disruptive than adding them.
Anyone know how resistant other conlang communities are to new words? Marc Okrand is very resistant to adding very many new words per year. Esperanto seems rather open to new words. I couldn't figure out what the process is for introducing new gismu, although the algorithm for their creation seems well defined. Laadan has accepted community generated base words (but not all that many!), which makes sense because coming up with base words for hyperspecific social situations is an important feature of the language.
I'm drawing a blank for any other conlangs--this is really only a problem of conlangs with users. Who cares if a word appears or disappears in a language that exist only as a specfication.
Removing words by decree is far more disruptive than adding them.
Anyone know how resistant other conlang communities are to new words? Marc Okrand is very resistant to adding very many new words per year. Esperanto seems rather open to new words. I couldn't figure out what the process is for introducing new gismu, although the algorithm for their creation seems well defined. Laadan has accepted community generated base words (but not all that many!), which makes sense because coming up with base words for hyperspecific social situations is an important feature of the language.
I'm drawing a blank for any other conlangs--this is really only a problem of conlangs with users. Who cares if a word appears or disappears in a language that exist only as a specfication.
Re: nimi sin sin (eĉ plu novaj vortoj, even more new words)
Actually, I'd remove 'kepeken'; it's longer.
It depends on what you mean by "new" words. Lojban adds lujvo and other kinds of words constructed from existing roots or borrowings fairly easily, but no new gismu in ages (there is not really a process for doing so). Esperanto, on the hand, borrows almost unconsciously from the international vocabulary. aUI adds new words all the time by recombining the basic elements (meanings often obscure) (or would if anybody were dealing with it).
It depends on what you mean by "new" words. Lojban adds lujvo and other kinds of words constructed from existing roots or borrowings fairly easily, but no new gismu in ages (there is not really a process for doing so). Esperanto, on the hand, borrows almost unconsciously from the international vocabulary. aUI adds new words all the time by recombining the basic elements (meanings often obscure) (or would if anybody were dealing with it).
Re: nimi sin sin (eĉ plu novaj vortoj, even more new words)
kepeken isn't stable. If tp were spoken at home for a while, it would turn into kepe or kepen-- ditto for sijelo -> sije, and prolly a few more.
I had in mind basic, content (not function), root words. I see your point that if a word is derived by derivational morphology or compounding and is unintelligible just by looking at it parts, it is just as problematic as a brand new root word.
I suppose it is possible to have a language with no root words-- all words made from morphemes and no morphemes allowed to stand on its own-- this would make the 20 "word" languages more believable.
I had in mind basic, content (not function), root words. I see your point that if a word is derived by derivational morphology or compounding and is unintelligible just by looking at it parts, it is just as problematic as a brand new root word.
I suppose it is possible to have a language with no root words-- all words made from morphemes and no morphemes allowed to stand on its own-- this would make the 20 "word" languages more believable.
Re: nimi sin sin (eĉ plu novaj vortoj, even more new words)
aUI probably qualifies -- maybe one or two units can stand alone, but most need at least one other to function. Other philosophical languages seem to behave similarly.
Re: nimi sin sin (eĉ plu novaj vortoj, even more new words)
Maybe pu is an emphatical comma.
sina pu kama jo e...
You (and not another one) receive...
mi kama jo esun e moku e kili. mi pana sina e kili pu
I bought food and fruit. The fruit, I give it to you
or: I give yo just the fruit
Goodbye!
sina pu kama jo e...
You (and not another one) receive...
mi kama jo esun e moku e kili. mi pana sina e kili pu
I bought food and fruit. The fruit, I give it to you
or: I give yo just the fruit
Goodbye!
ヤんリヨエヤんセゐラヤんリヰれエアら
Re: nimi sin sin (eĉ plu novaj vortoj, even more new words)
Interesting, but how does that differ from taso when used in the same place?mije Wi wrote:Maybe pu is an emphatical comma.
sina pu kama jo e...
mi kama jo esun e moku e kili. mi pana sina e kili pu
Re: nimi sin sin (eĉ plu novaj vortoj, even more new words)
phonetically, pu resembles pi. may be it is aimed to solve the paradox of pi:
officially
officially
, but in common usage (inspired by jan Pije book) it is a regroupping separator. may be pu is intended to split these functionspi sep of, belonging to
Re: nimi sin sin (eĉ plu novaj vortoj, even more new words)
Can you make an example please?
ヤんリヨエヤんセゐラヤんリヰれエアら
Re: nimi sin sin (eĉ plu novaj vortoj, even more new words)
'kili loje mute' v. 'kili pi loje mute' "many red fruits" v. "very red fruit"
'kama jaki ala' v 'kama pi jaki ala' "didn't get dirty" v. "got clean"
'kama jaki ala' v 'kama pi jaki ala' "didn't get dirty" v. "got clean"