Meta

[shanex]

Recently I have taken a great interest in languages, and I came up with an interesting idea. I'm fairly convinced this idea hasn't been tried or seriously considered, because it would have no value before the computer age

Comments

[shanex]

I came up with those 4 words out of literally nowhere. I made them up with no root derivation. I made random sounds with my mouth.

I'll take a stab at correcting the meta in your comment, but I'm no better at it than you are, having only just made it up:

----
origin of word four "gi, ki, karn, and tuski" be what?

I think syntax of meta be careful too. KARN Most speaker english read can but write can non. (I honestly don't understand what was intended in that next sentence). Negation be non easy. If section of statement be negated then size of section be non clear.

(I'm sure I messed up in there somewhere)
------

To reply (in normal english because, as you have noticed, it's a pain in the ass to speak in meta at the moment):

I don't believe the syntax is any more careful than any other language. If it is too stringent in places, we should change it. I am hoping for suggestions and advice from anyone who can think of ways to make it easier, with the understanding that I don't just want it easier for english speakers.

And yes, users of it would have to effectively learn a new language when it comes to syntax and grammar. But the main timesink in learning a real language is the vocabulary. Tons and tons of rote memorization. I suspect that after a few days of posting in meta, you would find it easier.

As for negation, I don't think it's a problem. You put "non" as a modifier after whatever you are negating. If you want to negate a section of a sentence, you can do that by negating the verb that applies to it, just as in English:

(Eng) "I did not go to the store and get eggs and milk"

We negate the whole thing just by negating "did". You'd do a similar thing in Meta:

(Meta) "I KA-go non to store and KA-get non egg and milk"

-ATW

[ramirus]

with 'cat of I big fluffy' - that looks odd to me because I think the two adjectives 'big fluffy' need to be tacked next to 'cat' and not to 'I'. i'm not really sure how to refer to placement of stuff, spatially. i was using KI and GA there to denote before and after - 'this part should go before here', sort of thing - but that doesn't work because there's no shift in tense, really.

[shanex]

Crap, you're right. I'm going to need to think about that. That may be what vvvexation was getting at. Possessives are the only time when the modifiers don't go right after the thing they're modifying.

Hmm. I have no immediate solution. Thanks for making that issue clear to me.

-ATW

[otherbill]

If you simplify possessives to these three:

• my
  
• your
  

then they can be treated as plain ol' adjectives and this issue goes away entirely.

[shanex]

Hmm, on further review, I see that I inadvertently came up with the answer in replying to vvvexation's post.

"cat of I big fluffy" is wrong. I messed up when I gave that as an example. The correct word order would be "cat big fluffy of I". This removes any ambiguity. "(big fluffy cat) which belongs to me".

-ATW