Re: Error rate, Circumlocution, and Cappucino

--- In conlang@yahoogroups.com, Paul Bennett <paul-bennett@N...>
> wrote:
> [snip]
> What can you say about the acceptable error rate
> within your conlang(s)?
> Does it easily tolerate sloppy grammar, or unusual accents,
> or poor articulation?
> [snip]
> What monomorphemic (or compound) words in your conlang(s)
> need to be circumlocuted in English?
> Likewise, what single words in English (or your
> native language) have to be circumlocuted in your conlang(s)?
> [snip]
I haven't invented an entire conlang yet.

On July 14 2005 in message 132616 in response to a topic brought up
by John Vertical I proposed a set of 73 genderless, caseless,
independent pronouns in a four-grammatical-person, six-grammatical-
number system.

The root pronouns were monomorphemic and bisyllabic.  There were 15
of them.  I have reproduced them below.

Word.. Persons Included

bagkon 1
cagkop 2
dagkoq 3
fagkor 4
begkup 12
bigkuq 13
bogkur 14
cigkwq 23
cogkwr 24
dogkyr 34
behlwq 123
bejlwr 124
bijlyr 134
cijmyr 234
behmyr 1234

The remaining ones have a one-syllable suffix added on to one of the
above.

Each word differs from each other word in at least two phonemes. With
the exception of those first 4 words in the above list, no two words
contain three consecutive identical phonemes.  So, I think the
pronouns paradigm of my "sketchlang" (if it's even enough of a sketch
to qualify as a "sketchlang" yet) is very error-detecting, if not
error-correcting.

Since my 73-pronoun system has distinctions between 3rd-person
proximative and 3rd-person obviative, and that distinction must be
made periphrastically in English, anytime you see a "4" in
the "persons included" column above, that's a monomorphemic word that
has to be expressed periphrastically in English.

Also, my system has different roots for groups of people including
the speaker and others, but not the addressee, versus groups
including the speaker and the addressee, (possibly as well as others).
Example: "begkup" vs. "bigkuq".
Such a distinction cannot be made in English except periphrastically.

Also, my full system (not reproduced here -- see the archives for
message 132616, July 14 2005) has 6 grammatical numbers -- singular,
dual, trial, paucal, plural, and greater-plural.  English cannot
distinguish between the various non-singular numbers except
periphrastically; so, the fifth thru fifteenth of the above words
("begkup" thru "behmyr"), representing, as they do, dual or trial or
paucal, can't be expressed monomorphemically in English.

----------

As for what is monomorphemic in English but not in this system:

This system is genderless, so
English has a difference between "he" and "she" and "it" --
but my system calls them all "dagkoq".  I would need some kind of
circumlocution to explain that I was talking about an inanimate
object, or a male or female person.

This system is caseless, so
English has a difference between "I" and "me" -- I have only "bagkon".
I would need an adposition, I suppose, to tag the case as nominative
or oblique (or whatever case system I come up with).

----------

Thanks for an interesting question.

Tom H.C. in MI