Anthologica Universe Atlas / Forums / Department of Creativity / Advice sought / <!>Advice sought (2014-04-19 16:22:32)
Thank you! That is extremely helpful feedback of exactly the type I am looking for, and I really appreciate your taking the time to look through the grammar well enough to spot these things.
A few comments on some points:
1) The logic on splitting morphology from syntax is that the latter deals with all the grammatical machinery, while the former is meant to be something like a set of morphology tables gathered together in one place for easy reference so you don't have them spread willy-nilly across a whole book - but including description of how word shapes work when using them, since this is a matter somewhat accidental and disjoint from the big ball of rules that make up the grammar grammar. Some languages are better suited to this style of description than others - it is quite decent for Latin or German, but abysmal for the likes of Mandarin or Haida. I think I will be retaining the split, but I will do some re-thinking about how information is organized and located between the two sections, and ensure that relevant morphological tables are repeated within the syntax section for easier reference.
6) I knew they were disasters even as I was writing them originally - at the time, I couldn't think of any better way to go about it. The TC sections are not far behind. In both cases the sections need to be reunited and also rewritten, probably from scratch. Even how I treat the formants is probably going to change - my descriptive approach to them is awfully clunky and confusing. Not that I intend to change their nature; but might it be less confusing to first lay them out as grammatical voices, and then describe how they also affect semantic role interpretation, ending with how each verb is married to one of them whether the voice applies or not? Or something along those lines?
8) Well, I am not really envisioning many people trying to use the conlang, let alone learn it; so instructive value is not meant to be ignored, but is meant to come in (a close) second behind providing as comprehensive an analysis as I might. More examples I can and indeed should provide, as well as better description of what the various adjustments are for. Beyond that, I'm not sure what more I could do to improve instructive value.
A few comments on some points:
1) The logic on splitting morphology from syntax is that the latter deals with all the grammatical machinery, while the former is meant to be something like a set of morphology tables gathered together in one place for easy reference so you don't have them spread willy-nilly across a whole book - but including description of how word shapes work when using them, since this is a matter somewhat accidental and disjoint from the big ball of rules that make up the grammar grammar. Some languages are better suited to this style of description than others - it is quite decent for Latin or German, but abysmal for the likes of Mandarin or Haida. I think I will be retaining the split, but I will do some re-thinking about how information is organized and located between the two sections, and ensure that relevant morphological tables are repeated within the syntax section for easier reference.
6) I knew they were disasters even as I was writing them originally - at the time, I couldn't think of any better way to go about it. The TC sections are not far behind. In both cases the sections need to be reunited and also rewritten, probably from scratch. Even how I treat the formants is probably going to change - my descriptive approach to them is awfully clunky and confusing. Not that I intend to change their nature; but might it be less confusing to first lay them out as grammatical voices, and then describe how they also affect semantic role interpretation, ending with how each verb is married to one of them whether the voice applies or not? Or something along those lines?
8) Well, I am not really envisioning many people trying to use the conlang, let alone learn it; so instructive value is not meant to be ignored, but is meant to come in (a close) second behind providing as comprehensive an analysis as I might. More examples I can and indeed should provide, as well as better description of what the various adjustments are for. Beyond that, I'm not sure what more I could do to improve instructive value.