User talk:H. H. P. M. P. Cole
| Welcome to Linguifex! |
| If you have any questions, feel free to drop me a message on my Talk page or Discord; you can join the Linguifex's Discord server as many fellow conlangers or via private message ( @sware).Really looking forward to seeing your contributions. |
| From all of us here on Linguifex: The best of luck with your language(s)! |
— sware • 🗣 • 🏲 19:33, 2 December 2024 (UTC)
On a priori
To say a passage written in an a priori conlang is gibberish would be a misunderstanding of its (the passage's) purpose, which is not to communicate what it supposedly says, but rather to showcase the abstract rules of that conlang in action. When I do an a priori conlang, it isn't meant for communication: it is to illustrate a previously unreported way of organizing sound and meaning. Making up a priori words offers greater freedon for this end.
Anyway, happy holidays and greetings from an a priori conlang guy. SN2rname (talk) 10:54, 27 December 2024 (UTC)
- You have a point there - however, I have a question. How could average people, with little to no linguistics knowledge, be able to discern the abstract rules of (any) conlang? H. H. P. M. P. Cole (talk) 11:36, 27 December 2024 (UTC)
- Usually, an example text written in an a priori conlang would be accompanied by a word-by-word gloss (the go.3SG.PRES sort of thing). The gloss would describe the semantic or syntactic role of each word in the text so the grammatical rules are exemplified. SN2rname (talk) 10:50, 29 December 2024 (UTC)
- You're right, I didn't think about glosses... Anyway, you raised some important points, which I will keep in mind. H. H. P. M. P. Cole (talk) 11:56, 29 December 2024 (UTC)
Riemannic and The Colepypasta
I recently read the Riemannic page. I think it did a good job mixing different languages and concepts while maintaining a coherent theme.
So now I'm curious what the main arguments of "The Colepypasta" are. I'm lost;
not ( ( your thought of_the your manait out_of your ?flicker? ) is a ?slander? of_the operation with nēm "I think with this þīsætērvug" ) ɣrum? two lemen.
A translation or a summary would help. If you think it'd be controversial, you can email it to me. SN2rname (talk) 11:14, 22 January 2025 (UTC)
- The lexicon is linked in the official Google sheet, which is a link in the article. I am linking it again here. That sentence will be glossed as follows:
nekt la la din denk þes din manait øt din flikσtāt al iσt ēn parjām þes operat mit nēm "ih denkəþ mit desēr þīsætērvug" al. ɣrum? zven lemen. not ( ( your thought of_the your humanhood out_of your fly_city ) is a parameter of_the operation with name "I think with this set_of-things" ). why? two statement_plural.
Fun fact: the original was written in English and it had caused me to be banned in a couple of Discord servers before (and my actual beliefs are encoded within: this is why I quit Discord) so I would be happy to email the full "overly literal translation" to you through email. If I have time, I may provide a gloss. May I know what is your email? H. H. P. M. P. Cole (talk) 11:25, 22 January 2025 (UTC)
- I see, there's more in the google doc. My email is clyde12550821[æt]outlook[dɒt]com. I see gender noncomforming people as normal human beings, but there's too much narative-pushing and silencing on this topic now, and I'd like to hear opinions from the other side of the debate. SN2rname (talk) 11:11, 23 January 2025 (UTC)