X-languages: Difference between revisions
WeepingElf (talk | contribs) No edit summary |
WeepingElf (talk | contribs) No edit summary |
||
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
The '''X-languages''' are [[engineered language|experimental languages]] by [[User:WeepingElf|Jörg Rhiemeier]]. They are called this way because they are designated by the letter "X" followed by a number. The "X" stands for "eXperimental language". | The '''X-languages''' are [[engineered language|experimental languages]] by [[User:WeepingElf|Jörg Rhiemeier]]. They are called this way because they are designated by the letter "X" followed by a number. The "X" stands for "eXperimental language". | ||
The X-languages are quite different from each other and do not form a unified family of any sort. They surely aren't cognate in the historical linguistic sense as, for example, [[Low Elvish]] and [[Macaronesian]] are cognate. Nevertheless, there are a few recurrent features, such as [[self-segregating morphology]] and only one single open word class lumping together all the content words (nouns, verbs, adjectives etc.). None of the X-languages has a conculture attached, and none is intended to be [[naturalist artlang|naturalist]]. | The X-languages are quite different from each other and do not form a unified family of any sort. They surely aren't cognate in the historical linguistic sense as, for example, [[Low Elvish]] and [[Macaronesian]] are cognate. Nevertheless, there are a few recurrent features, such as [[self-segregating morphology]], [[fluid-S]] morphosyntactic alignment (as far as it can be applied) and only one single open word class lumping together all the content words (nouns, verbs, adjectives etc.). None of the X-languages has a conculture attached, and none is intended to be [[naturalist artlang|naturalist]]. | ||
What I am ''not'' going to do is to propose ''any'' of the X-languages as an [[auxlang]] or anything like that. They are ''experimental'' and way too bizarre to be actually used (for example, I doubt that any human can parse an [[X-2]] sentence which makes ample use of the language's stack-manipulation tricks in real time); and I am doing this (as all of my conlangs) just for ''fun ''. | What I am ''not'' going to do is to propose ''any'' of the X-languages as an [[auxlang]] or anything like that. They are ''experimental'' and way too bizarre to be actually used (for example, I doubt that any human can parse an [[X-2]] sentence which makes ample use of the language's stack-manipulation tricks in real time); and I am doing this (as all of my conlangs) just for ''fun ''. | ||
Revision as of 03:07, 27 February 2006
The X-languages are experimental languages by Jörg Rhiemeier. They are called this way because they are designated by the letter "X" followed by a number. The "X" stands for "eXperimental language".
The X-languages are quite different from each other and do not form a unified family of any sort. They surely aren't cognate in the historical linguistic sense as, for example, Low Elvish and Macaronesian are cognate. Nevertheless, there are a few recurrent features, such as self-segregating morphology, fluid-S morphosyntactic alignment (as far as it can be applied) and only one single open word class lumping together all the content words (nouns, verbs, adjectives etc.). None of the X-languages has a conculture attached, and none is intended to be naturalist.
What I am not going to do is to propose any of the X-languages as an auxlang or anything like that. They are experimental and way too bizarre to be actually used (for example, I doubt that any human can parse an X-2 sentence which makes ample use of the language's stack-manipulation tricks in real time); and I am doing this (as all of my conlangs) just for fun .
I am also not going to say goodbye to naturalist artlanging. My main conlang project is still Albic. But there are some really crazy ideas in my head that fit neither there nor in any other naturalist language, and want to be let loose in experimental languages.
