From 27c9f305310f2025ae34be905589613d5c1f47e7 Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001 From: uakci Date: Fri, 18 Sep 2020 02:23:27 +0200 Subject: 2004-en, 2004-ru, 2011-en --- 2004-en/ithkuil-intro.htm | 881 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ 1 file changed, 881 insertions(+) create mode 100644 2004-en/ithkuil-intro.htm (limited to '2004-en/ithkuil-intro.htm') diff --git a/2004-en/ithkuil-intro.htm b/2004-en/ithkuil-intro.htm new file mode 100644 index 0000000..267d179 --- /dev/null +++ b/2004-en/ithkuil-intro.htm @@ -0,0 +1,881 @@ + + + +A Philosophical Grammar of Ithkuil, a Constructed Language - Introduction + + + + + + + + + + + +
Ithkuil: + A Philosophical Design for a Hypothetical Language
+
+
+
+ + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + +
 2 + Morpho-Phonology 7a + Using Affixes 12 + The Number System
  3 + Basic Morphology7b + Using Affixes (continued) The + Lexicon
 4 + Case Morphology  8 + AdjunctsRevised Ithkuil: Ilaksh
+

 

+

Update: Important Changes Coming to the Ithkuil Website in June-July 2011!

+

 

+

INTRODUCTION
+

+

 

+ + + + +
+

0.1 Background

+

Ithkuil is an artificially constructed human language systematically + designed to blend a high degree of communication of cognitive intent and meaning + with a high degree of efficiency, i.e., to allow speakers to say a lot in as + few syllables as possible. The navigational links above (or at the bottom + of this page) lead to chapters on the major grammatical components of the language + and should be read in sequence, as each chapter is cumulative and assumes knowledge + of the preceding. While this grammar assumes only a basic knowledge of linguistic + concepts, it will be helpful to briefly familiarize the reader with the hierarchical/schematic + structure of human language in general, as the organization of this grammar + is somewhat based around this structure. The analysis of human language can + be organized into the following hierarchical schema of primary concepts:

+ +
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
The above components of language in turn operate in an interrelated + fashion, combining to designate several additional or secondary levels of analysis. + For example:
+
+ +
+

The interrelationships between these components can be illustrated + by the following diagram.

+

+

 

+ + + + +
+

0.2 How the Language Works

+

As a model for human language, Ithkuil is capable of high levels + of conciseness and semantic detail while overtly reflecting a deep level of + cognitive conceptualization, more so than in natural languages. This means, + essentially, that Ithkuil is designed to convey large amounts of linguistic + information using fewer words, with those words being based on monosyllabic + roots and word-parts. In turn, the grammar supporting these words reflect the + speaker’s cognitive intent explicitly, while displaying little of the + euphemism, vagueness, circumlocution, redundancy, polysemy (i.e., mulhttps://web.archive.org/web/20090606100823id_/http:/www.ithkuil.net/tiple meanings), + and ambiguity manifested in natural languages.

+

NOTE: The preceding paragraph may remind some readers of the + “Speedtalk” + language in Robert Heinlein’s novella Gulf, in which every morpheme + (meaningful word-part) is apparently represented by a single phoneme (sound). + To some extent, Ithkuil approaches this ideal. However, Heinlein’s Speedtalk + appears to focus only on the morpho-phonological component of language (i.e., + the correspondence between sound and individual grammatical components) without + any corresponding focus on the logical redesign of a language’s morphology, + lexico-morphology, or lexico-semantics to provide an equally “compressed” + morpho-syntactical and lexical component. Ithkuil has been designed with an + equal focus on these latter linguistic components. Additionally, the apparent + purpose of Heinlein's language is simple rapidity/brevity of speech and thought, + while Ithkuil is focused on maximal communication in the most efficient manner, + a somewhat different purpose, in which brevity per se is irrelevant.

+

As an example of the morphological richness and efficiency + possible in this language, examine the following Ithkuil sentence, comphttps://web.archive.org/web/20090606100823id_/http:/www.ithkuil.net/aring + it to its literal English translation:

+ + + + + + + + + +
+

+

Listen! +
TRANSLATION:‘On the contrary, I think it may turn + out thttps://web.archive.org/web/20090606100823id_/http:/www.ithkuil.net/hat this rugged mountain range trails off at some point.’
+NOTE: See Phonology, Section +1.2 on how to pronounce the Romanized orthography used to transliterate the +Ithkuil characters.
+

The reader may well wonder why it takes a 19-word sentence + in English to translate a two-word Ithkuil sentence. One might assume the sentence + “cheats” in that the two Ithkuil words simply have innately intricate + and specialized meanings. While it is true that the first word, oumpeá, + translates as ‘on the contrary, I havhttps://web.archive.org/web/20090606100823id_/http:/www.ithkuil.net/e a feeling it may turn out at + some point (that),’ and the second word, äx’ääuktëx, + means ‘the unevenly high range of mountains in question trails off,’ + it would be quite erroneous to conclude that these are simply autonomous words + one might theoretically find in an Ithkuil dicthttps://web.archive.org/web/20090606100823id_/http:/www.ithkuil.net/ionary. Indeed, the only part + of the sentence that represents any sort of “root” word is -xä-, + a stem more or less meaning ‘hill’ or ‘upland.’ The + remainder of the sentence is made up entirely of morphological, not lexical + components, i.e., prefixes, suffixes, infixes, vowel permutations, shifts in + stress, etc. For example, the first word, oumpeá, + has four parts to it as shown below:

+ + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + +
 1.ou-=an aspectual prefix translatable as ‘it + turns out that’ or ‘it is revealed that’
 2.-mp-=an infix indicating both a rebuttal to an allegation + and a conclusion based on the speaker’s intuition, translatable as + ‘on the contrary, I have a feeling’
 3.-ea=an aspectual suffix translatable as ‘at + some point’ or ‘somewhere along the way’
 4.stress + on final syllable + falling tone = subjunctive mood, translatable + https://web.archive.org/web/20090606100823id_/http:/www.ithkuil.net/as ‘may’
+


+ The second word, äx’ääuktëx, + breaks down morphologically as follows:

+ + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + +
 1.ä-=a prefix indicating, among other things, that + the entity displays depletion (i.e., ‘trailing off’ or ‘petering + out’)
 https://web.archive.org/web/20090606100823id_/http:/www.ithkuil.net/2.x’ä=a stem derived from xä + ‘hill, upland’ (in turn derived from the root x- + indicating the level of a landscape), the mutation of the initial consonant + x- into + x’- + indicating that the stem is to be re-interpreted as comprising a composite + entity of non-identical members consolidated together into a single segmented + whole (i.e., ‘hill’ becomes ‘uneven range of hills’)
 3.-ukt-=a demonstrative suffix translatable as ‘this’ + (= ‘the one in question’ or ‘the one at hand’)
 4.-ëx=a suffix indicating that the stem is to be interpreted + as being very large in size, and furthermore, that the increase in size + creates a new gestalt entity, i.e., not simply a ‘very large hill + or upland’ but rather a ‘mountain’
 5.stress + on antepenultimate (i.e., third-from-last) syllable (indicated in the Romanized + spelling by doubling of the stem vowel -ä-)= generic statement neutral as to time or present + impact
 6.falling + tone (unmarked)=statement reflects objective fact as opposed to subjective + interpretation, i.e., that it describes a real situation irrespective of + the speaker’s beliefs, opinions, convention, usage, etc. (i.e., the + fact that the mountain range does have an ending whether one knows where + it is or not)
+

The following additional example sentences illustrate how the + language manifests a cohttps://web.archive.org/web/20090606100823id_/http:/www.ithkuil.net/mbination of semantic richness withhttps://web.archive.org/web/20090606100823id_/http:/www.ithkuil.net/ morphological conciseness:
+

+ + + + + + + + +
Listen! + https://web.archive.org/web/20090606100823id_/http:/www.ithkuil.net/
+Hey! Something belonging to you and your hodge-podge of parts is crawling +on me!
+[What a Star Trek character might say to a Borg who has just produced an assimilated +arachnid from hhttps://web.archive.org/web/20090606100823id_/http:/www.ithkuil.net/is pocket]
+ +

 

+ + + + + +
Listen! +
+We successfully took part in the effort using a formal set of varying parts +on behalf of the group of people with whom you anhttps://web.archive.org/web/20090606100823id_/http:/www.ithkuil.net/d he are associated.
+

 

+ + + + + +
Listen! +
+The sound coming from the banks of prihttps://web.archive.org/web/20090606100823id_/http:/www.ithkuil.net/nters kept on steadily repeating. +
+
+
+
+ + + + + +
Listen! +
+As it turned out, the snake-handler apparently began trapping each mouse in +a container, one at a time like clhttps://web.archive.org/web/20090606100823id_/http:/www.ithkuil.net/ockwork.
+

 

+ + + + + + + + +
Listen! +
+Aided by the bird’s own stupidity, the man, in inadvertently letting +it out of the house, unexpectedly and accidentally killed it without even realizing +he’d done so.
+


+ Such detail plus conciseness is possible due to the design of the grammar, essentially + a matrix of grammatical concepts and structures designed for compactness, cross-functionality + and reusability. This matrix-like grammar is combined with a vocabulary/lexicon + of semantic stems which (1) are capable of a high degree of flexibility and + synergism within that matrix, (2) have been completely reconceptualized from + the cognitive level up regardless of their correspondence to actual word roots + and grammatical categories in existing languages, and (3) reflect the inherent + dependencies and interrelationships between one semantic concept and another. + Therefore, the morphemes of the language (i.e., word-roots, suffixes, prefixes, + grammatical categories, etc.) are as phonetically brief as possible, function + in multiple roles with one another, and correspond more closely to human cognitive + categories than in natural languages. In this fashion, a limited number of sounds + and word-roots can be made to generate a vast array of variations and derivations + corresponding to and even surpassing all of the grammatical and semantic functions + of the usual stock of words, phrases, and idiomatic constructions in natural + languages. These linguistic design principles are described in greater detail + in the sections below by means of illustrative analogies with English examples. +

+

 

+ + + + +

0.3 + A Synergistic Matrix of Semantic and Grammatical Categories

+

The above-described matrix can be dramatically illustrated + by describing the distinct difference between Ithkuil and other languages in + the way its lexicon (stock of word-roots) has been created and the principles + underlying its lexico-semantics (the relationship between words and meaning). + In natural languages, the choice as to what mental concepts and categories will + be overtly reflected as word-roots and stems is arbitrary and unsystematic (while + in most invented languages, the lexicon is by and large consciously or sub-consciously + patterned after that of natural languages). While it is true that virtually + all languages reflect certain basic universals of word choice (e.g., all have + words for sun, moon, speak, mother, father, laugh, I, you, one, two, water, + blood, black, white, hot, cold, etc.), the manner in which these words + are created is haphazard and with little regard for basic conceptual interrelationships. + The result, in most cases, is a plethora of separate, distinct word roots which + bear no morpho-phonological, or morpho-semantic relation to one another (i.e., + the patterns of sounds used to create particular words are unsystematic and + independent for each word-root regardless of whether those word-roots are semantically + or cognitively related to one another). Ithkuil word-roots have been created + in a more efficient and systematic manner, with a recognition that the interrelatedness + between what are large sets of discrete words in other languages can be formalized + and systematized into a vast array or matrix of derivational rules, the result + being a drastic reduction in the number of basic word-roots, which in turn allows + all individual stems to be extremely compact phonologically-speaking.

+

For example, consider the following series of English words: + see, sight, vision, glimpse, stare, gawk, view, panorama, look, eye, glance, + visualize. Note how each of these is a separate, autonomous word despite + the fact that it shares a single underlying semantic concept with the others + (a concept which we can conveniently refer to as SIGHT/VISION), + each representing a mere manipulation of either durational aspect, situational + perspective, or manner of participation relating to that underlying concept. + What is more, these manipulations are, by and large, haphazardly applied, vague, + subjective, and particular to the specific underlying concept (i.e., the aspectual/perspectival + manipulations applied to SIGHT/VISION do not parallel + those manipulations applied to the concept TRANSFERENCE OF POSSESSION + by which we derive the series give, take, receive, steal, donate, lend, + borrow, send, etc.).

+

In Ithkuil, it is the seminal underlying concept which is lexified + into a word-root which then undergoes a series of regular, predictable, and + universally applicable modifications at the morphological (i.e., grammatical) + level to generate new words that, in some cases, parallel such series of English + words, but in most cases, far exceed the dynamism and range of such English + word series. This is illustrated by the list of Ithkuil words in the table below, + all of which are simply grammatical derivations, using affixes and systematic + phonemic mutations (i.e., sound shifts), of a single word-root r–q + whose meaning is translatable as ‘EXISTENT THING; TO EXIST + (AS SOMETHING).’ Alongside each word is its translation. (Note: + the translations below represent convenient approximations at best, as purely + literal translations would have to capture the systematic and derivative structure + of the Ihttps://web.archive.org/web/20090606100823id_/http:/www.ithkuil.net/thkuil words. For example, the word + amriqoçi + translated below as ‘destroy’ literally means ‘unmake + a constructed componential set by extreme violence.’ Note also that the + list below represents only a smalhttps://web.archive.org/web/20090606100823id_/http:/www.ithkuil.net/l number of the thousands of derivations theoretically + possible for this single word-root.)

+ + + + +
+

Another principle underlying the formation of words in Ithkuil + is complementarity. Western thought and language generally + reflect Aristotelian logic in the way they conceptualize the world and the interrelationships + between discrete entities in that world. Ithkuil, on the other hand, views the + world as being based on complementary principles, where, instead of discrete + independence between related entities, such concepts are seen as complementary + aspects of a single holistic entity. Such complementarity is in turn reflected + in the derivation of word-roots. By “complementarity” is meant that + the manifestation of a concept appears in any given context as either one sort + of entity or another, but never both simultaneously; yet, neither manifestation + can be considered to be a discrete whole without the existence of the other. + A simple illustration of complementarity is the flip of a coin: the coin can + only land on one side or the other, yet without both sides being part of the + coin, any given coin toss has no meaning or contextual relevance no matter which + side is face-up.

+

For example, in Western languages, words such as male, + night, limb, sit, and happen are all autonomous + words, linguistically representing what are inherently considered to be basic + mental concepts or semantic primitives. However, in Ithkuil, none of these words + is considered to be a semantic primitive. Instead, they are seen to be parts + of greater, more holistic semantic concepts, existing in complementary relationship + to another part, the two together making up the whole.

+

Thus, Ithkuil lexical structure recognizes that the word male + has no meaning in and of itself without an implicit recognition of its complementary + partner, female, the two words mutually deriving from a more basic, + holistic concept, translatable into English as living being. Similarly, + the word night(time) derives along with its complement day(time) + from the underlying concept translatable as day (24-hour period), while + limb, along with its complement trunk or torso, derives + from the stem (corporeal) body.

+

Actions, too, are not exempt from this principle of complementarity, + an example being the relationship between sit and seat; one + has no meaning without an implicit and joint partnership with the other, i.e., + one cannot sit unless one sits upon something, and whatever one sits upon automatically + functions as a seat. We see the awkward attempt of English to convey these jointly + dependent but mutually exclusive perspectives when comparing the sentences Please + sit down and Please be seated. Another example involves the word + happen or occur, which Ithkuil recognizes as having no real + meaning without the attendant implication of consequence or result, + the two being complementary components of a holistic concept roughly translatable + as event or situation.

+

The Ithkuil word for hole illustrates another instance + of complementarity. Holes can be looked at from two different, but interrelated + perspectives: either as an opening connecting two different spaces (or access + point to a previously unavailable space, i.e., a pit), or as a discontinuity + in the surface or structural integrity of the dividing entity separating the + two realms. In other words, one can focus on the potential function or consequences + of the hole, or on the structural nature of the hole. Either of these two perspectives + represents a legitimate, but complementary way to consider a hole or puncture. + Thus, the Ithkuil word would have two derivative roots each indicating one of + these two perspectives. One such root would be used when saying There’s + a hole in your shirt, while the other would be used when saying She + saw me through a hole in the fence.

+

Ithkuil recognizes that such complementarity exists for virtually + any concept, in fact that it is one of the foundational principles of the universe + itself. No beam of light can be spoken of without implicit recognition of its + source. No signal can be described without accounting for the signaling device. + Indeed, in Ithkuil no river is without its channel, no surface without its firmament, + no message without its medium, no sense impression without its sense faculty, + no contents without their container, no occurrence without its consequence, + no memory without its present effect, no plan without its purpose, no music + without its playing, no relief without prerequisite deprivation, no pleasure + without its absence, no motion without space in which to move.

+

Other principles underlying Ithkuil word-derivation include + the interrelated principles of fuzzy logic, prototype theory, and radial categorization. + Incorporation of these principles into the architecture for word-formation allows + roots to be grouped into various types of affiliated sets, each of which then + functions as a conceptual gestalt, the individual members of which being marked + as having varying degrees and kinds of relatedness or similarity to a hypothetical + prototype member or archetype. Thus, Ithkuil is able to systematically derive + words such as crowd, mob, group, troop, club, association, assembly, and + gathering all from the single root-word person. Similarly, + words such as grove, orchard, forest, woods, jungle, and copse + can all be derived from the single root-word tree.

+

As one last example exemplifying the dynamism and conciseness + of Ithkuil lexico-semantics, consider the following list of English words and + phrases: drenched, wet, damp, moist, near-dry, dry, parched. Rather + than provide separate autonomous words for these concepts, Ithkuil recognizes + that these terms all indicate relative degrees of moisture along a continuous + range. Such continua would be addressed by a single root whose meaning more + or less corresponds to [DEGREE OF] MOISTURE to which an + array of simple suffixes would be added to specify the particular degree along + that range, all the way from bone dry (or parched) through + drenched to saturated. All such phenomena which Western languages + tend to semantically delineate into binary oppositions (e.g., hard/soft, + light/dark, shallow/deep, etc.) are recognized and lexified in Ithkuil + as single roots which then systematically use suffixes to specify the particular + degree along a continuous range.

+

The above paragraphs illustrate how Ithkuil is able to capture + and systematically present at the morphological level what other languages accomplish + haphazardly at the lexical level. By systematically finding and structuring + the covert dependencies and interrelationships between what are disparate words + in other languages, the hundreds of thousands of words in a language like English + are drastically reduced down to the 3600 word-roots of Ithkuil. This is morpho-lexical + efficiency on a grand scale. Nevertheless, by means of the matrix-like morphological + scheme previously described, each of these 3600 roots can in turn generate thousands + of permutations to convey complex and subtle semantic distinctions and operations + which dwarf the capacity of existing languages to convey without resorting to + cumbersome paraphrase. This is lexico-semantic and morpho-semantic efficiency + on an equally grand scale. Such a synergistic design for grammar lends a dynamism + that allows the Ithkuil language to describe reality to a minute lehttps://web.archive.org/web/20090606100823id_/http:/www.ithkuil.net/vel of detail + and exactitude despite a limited number of word-roots. This dynamism is visible + throughout this work, but is discussed in systematic detail in Chapter + 10: Lexico-Semantics.

+

 

+ + + + +

0.4 + Addressing the Vagueness Inherent in Natural Languages

+

To further illustrate the cognitive depth at which Ithkuil + operates, consider one of the most pervasive aspects of natural human languages: + semantic vagueness. For example, consider the following four English sentences:

+
+
+

(a) The boy rolled down the hill.
+ (b) Maybe she just stopped smoking.
+ (c) Joe didn’t win the lottery yesterday.
+ (d) There is a dog on my porch.

+
+
+

In examining these four sentences most native English speakers + would deny that any vagueness exists. This is because the vagueness does not + exist in terms of the overt meanings of the words themselves. Rather, the vagueness + lies at the nearly subconscious level of their grammatical (or syntactical) + relations and cognitive intent. For example, in sentence (a) we have no idea + whether the boy chose to roll himself down the hill or whether he was pushed + against his will. (In formal linguistic terms we would say it is unknown whether + the semantic role of the subject ‘boy’ is as agent or patient.) + And yet knowing which scenario is correct is crucial to understanding the speaker’s + intent in describing the action.

+

Imagine sentence (b) Maybe she just stopped smoking + being spoken as an answer to the question ‘Why does she seem so irritable?’ + In interpreting sentence (b), we have no idea whether the subject is indeed + a smoker or not; i.e., is the speaker offering this speculation because he/she + knows the subject to be a smoker, or as mere conjecture without knowledge one + way or the other whether the subject smokes or not?

+

Sentence (c) Joe didn’t win the lottery yesterday + illustrates four-way ambiguity. Joe’s failure to win the lottery could + be either because: the speaker knows Joe didn’t play; because the speaker + knows Joe did play but lost; because the speaker doesn’t know whether + Joe played or not and is simply voicing a conjecture; or because the statement + is an inference based on some indirect clue (e.g., since Joe showed up for work + today, he must not have won the lottery).

+

And while sentence (d) There is a dog on my porch seems + on its surface to be the most straightforward of the four, is the intent of + the speaker to simply describe and identify the participants to a scene, or + does she wish to convey the idea that the scene has personal significance to + her, e.g., because she has a phobia of dogs or has been waiting for a long-lost + pet dog to return home? In other words, the sentence itself does not convey + the intent behind the utterance, only the static description of the scene.

+

In all four instances, such vagueness exists unless and until + the audience can ascertain information from the surrounding context of other + sentences. This shows that, despite the fact that all four sentences are grammatically + well-formed English sentences whose words in and of themselves are unambiguous, + their grammar alone is insufficient to convey the cognitive information necessary + to fully comprehend the intent of the speaker’s utterance. This failure + of grammar to inherently convey the requisite information necessary to understand + a speaker’s cognitive intent is a functional pitfall of human language + in general which Ithkuil grammar has been designed to avoid. The Ithkuil equivalents + to the above four sentences would mandatorily convey all of the “missing” + information noted above without requiring any extra words not corresponding + to the English originals. The grammatical elements of the words themselves (word-selection, + declensions, conjugations, prefixes, suffixes, etc.) would convey all the elements + mentioned.

+

Similar examples can be given to show the extent to which natural + languages such as English must often resort to idiomatic expressions, metaphor, + paraphrase, circumlocution and “supra-segmental” phenomena (e.g., + changing the pitch of one’s voice) in their attempts to convey a speaker’s + intended meaning. Ithkuil grammar has been designed to overtly and unambiguously + reflect the intention of a speaker with a minimum of such phenomena.

+

 

+ + + + +

0.5 + Comparison to Other Constructed Languages

+

Those readers familiar with the history of artificial + language construction might think this endeavor belated or unnecessary, + in that logical + languages such as James Cooke Brown’s renowned Loglan (or its popular + derivative, Lojban) already exist. This serves to illustrate exactly what distinguishes + Ithkuil from such previous attempts. Loglan was published in the 1950s as a + spoken/written language based on symbolic logic (formally known as the first-order + predicate calculus), an algorithmic system of symbol manipulation devised by + mathematicians and logicians. As a result, one might think that such a language + is the most capable means of achieving logical, unambiguous linguistic communication. + However, Loglan and its derivatives are merely sophisticated tools for symbol + manipulation, i.e., the levels of language previously described as morphology + and syntax. It is not within the scope of such languages to address any reorganization + of the semantic realm. This means that symbolic logic simply manipulates arguments + which are input into the system, they do not analyze the origin of those arguments + in terms of meaning, nor are they capable of analyzing or formalizing the structure + of the cognitive or semantic realm of the human mind in terms of how meaning + itself is assigned to arguments. (Indeed, Lojban derives its roots via statistical + “sampling” of the most frequent roots in the six most spoken natural + languages, a method virtually guaranteed to carry over into the Lojban lexicon + all of the lexico-semantic inefficiencies previously described.) By not addressing + these components of language, Loglan and similar efforts fail to address the + inconsistencies and inefficiency inherent in language at the lexico-semantic + level. Ithkuil has been designed to systematically address this issue.

+

Other readers might think of international languages (or “interlanguages”) + such as Esperanto, Interlingua, or Ido, as being logical and efficient representations of language. + However, these languages are merely simplified, regularized amalgamations of + existing languages (usually Indo-European), designed for ease of learning. While + addressing many overt irregularities, inconsistencies, and redundancies of language + found at the morpho-phonological and morpho-syntactic levels, they do little + to address the problems found within the other components of language, especially + the lexico-semantic. For example, while Esperanto admirably employs systematic + rules for word derivation as knabo ‘boy’ versus knabino + ‘girl,’ it preserves the basic lexico-semantic categorization scheme + of Indo-European languages in general, rather than seeking opportunities to + expand such word derivation schemes into multidimensional arrays as will be + shortly illustrated for Ithkuil.

+

All in all, neither logical languages such as Loglan nor interlanguages + such as Esperanto, are designed specifically to achievehttps://web.archive.org/web/20090606100823id_/http:/www.ithkuil.net/ the purpose of cognitive + exactness and conciseness of communication which is the goal of Ithkuil. Actually, + Ithkuil might more readily be compared with the analytical + language of John Wilkins of the Royal Society of London, published in 1668, + in which he divided the realm of human conception into forty categories, each + containing a hierarchy of subcategories and sub-subcategories, each in turn + systematically represented in the phonological structure of an individual word. + For example an initial g- might stand for a plant, while go- + indicated a tree, gob- a particular class of tree, and gobo + a particular tree species. While unworkable in terms of specifics, Wilkins’ + underlying principles are similar in a simplistic way to some of the abstract + derivational principles employed in Ithkuil lexico-morphology and lexico-semantics. + Another comparable predecessor in a simplistic sense is the musical language, + Solresol, created by Jean François Sudre and published in + 1866.

+

 

+ + + + +

0.6 + The Uniqueness of Ithkuil

+

The above description demonstrates that Ithkuil is rather unique + in the niche it occupies in the array of both natural and invented languages. + The design of Ithkuil has slowly and painstakingly evolved from my early attempts + as a teenager (following my introduction to the Sapir-Whorf hypothesis and Charles + Fillmore’s seminal 1968 article on case grammar) to explore beyond the + boundaries of Western Indo-European languages to a complex, intricate array + of interwoven grammatical concepts, many of which are wholly of my own creation, + others of which have been inspired by such obscure linguistic sources as the + morpho-phonology of Abkhaz verb complexes, the moods of verbs in certain American + Indian languages, the aspectual system of Niger-Kordofanian languages, the nominal + case systems of Basque and the Dagestanian languages, the enclitic system of + Wakashan languages, the positional orientation systems of Tzeltal and Guugu + Yimidhirr, the Semitic triliteral root morphology, and the hearsay and possessive + categories of Suzette Elgin’s Láadan language, not to mention ideas + inspired by countless hours studying texts in theoretical linguistics, cognitive + grammar, psycholinguistics, language acquisition, linguistic relativity, semantics, + semiotics, philosophy, fuzzy set theory, and even quantum physics.

+

The Ithkuil writing system likewise derives from both original + and inspired sources: it employs a unique “morpho-phonemic” principle + of my own invention, its logical design borrows from the mutational principles + underlying the Ethiopic and Brahmi scripts, and its aesthetic visual design + bears a superficial resemblance to Hebhttps://web.archive.org/web/20090606100823id_/http:/www.ithkuil.net/rew square script and the various Klingon + fonts.

+

As for the name of the language, Ithkuil, it is an anglicized + rendering of the word , + whose approximate translation is ‘hypothetical language.’

+

This website provides a systematic presentation of the grammar + of the language. In addition to a description of the various components of the + grammar, the reader will find example phrases or sentences illustrating those + components. Each example comprises an Ithkuil word, phrase, or sentence written + in native Ithkuil script, accompanied by a Romanized transliteration, an English + translation (sometimes divided into a “natural” versus literal translation), + and a morphological analysis. The morphological analysis is presented serially, + morpheme-by-morpheme, using three-letter abbreviations or labels for Ithkuil + morphological categories. These labels are presented within the body of the + work in conjunction with the explanation of each morphological category. This + system is illustrated by the example below, where the labels OBL + and PRP refer https://web.archive.org/web/20090606100823id_/http:/www.ithkuil.net/to the OBLIQUE and + PROPRIETIVE noun cases respectively. (These noun cases + are explhttps://web.archive.org/web/20090606100823id_/http:/www.ithkuil.net/ained in Chapter + 4):

+
+


+ têr hionn
+ title-OBL + father-PRP
+ ‘a father’s title’

+
+

This work is not meant as a primer or means of self-instruction + in speaking the language, a task beyond even its creator, given that Ithkuil + may be perhaps the most grammatically complex language ever devised. Simplicity + was not my purpose, but rather bridging the gap between extreme morphological + dynamism, the overt reflection of human cognitive processes via language, and + extreme morpho-semantic economy and efficiency. I believe I have achieved a + result which is close to the ideal I sought. I leave it to the reader to explore + that result.

+

I wish to thank all of those who have taken an interest in Ithkuil. I especially wish to thank Stanislav Kozlovskiy, whose 2004 article “The Speed of Thought” brought Ithkuil to the attention of so manyhttps://web.archive.org/web/20090606100823id_/http:/www.ithkuil.net/ people. Спасибо, Стас! Thanks also to Lexa Samons for his hard work in translating the original Ithkuil site into Russian. My appreciation also to fellow linguist and conlanger Davhttps://web.archive.org/web/20090606100823id_/http:/www.ithkuil.net/id J. Peterson for bestowing upon Ithkuil the 2008 Smiley Award.

+

Smiley Award

+

I dedicate this work to my brother, Paul, in fond memory of + Kccöj, Mbozo, and our other made-up langhttps://web.archive.org/web/20090606100823id_/http:/www.ithkuil.net/uages, and all + the fun times we had as kids learning about and playing with linguistics.

+

Proceed + to Chapter One: Phonology >>

+

 

+ + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + +
 2 + Morpho-Phonology&nbhttps://web.archive.org/web/20090606100823id_/http:/www.ithkuil.net/sp;7a + Using Affixes 12 + The Number System
  3 + Basic Morphology7bhttps://web.archive.org/web/20090606100823id_/http:/www.ithkuil.net/ + Using Affixes (continued) Thhttps://web.archive.org/web/20090606100823id_/http:/www.ithkuil.net/e + Lexicon
 4 + Case Morphology  8 + AdjunctsRevised Ithkuil: Ilaksh
+

©2004-2011 by John Quijada. You may copy or excerpt any portion + of the contents of this website provided you give full attribution to the author + and this website.

+

 

+

 

+ + -- cgit v1.2.3