Béu : Discarded Stuff

.... -fa, and -inda

These all form adjectives. The first might have some connection with a seŋgeba.

i.e. solbe = to drink

moze = water

moze solbefa = drinkable water

Maybe related to fua "can".

moze solbinda = water worth drinking

There is also another suffix, but this one can be said to be unrelated to "like" kinda

Maybe related to kinda "to like".

..

..... Introduction

The language and culture of béu are listed in the 10 chapters that follow. At the moment only the first chapter can really be considered finished ... at least as far as the language goes. Approximately the first 13 pages of every chapter concern the language and the last 6 pages or so concern the culture.

The cultural sections seem to be pretty solid at the moment but the linguistic sections are still in flux. Hopefully in the not too distant future the language will become equally solid.

In this introduction, I first discuss the language. Then I discuss some of the foundations of the culture of béu. Finally I mention some of the more esoteric bits of the culture.

..

A history of the Language ...

The very first language that I tried to construct was called HARWENG. This was eventually given up about 14 years ago. The basic problem was that I didn't know enough about linguistics. "if you want to get high, you first must build a strong foundation" When I tried to build on the foundations that I had established, I found too many things just didn't harmonise : it seemed like an impossible task to cut though the tangles, so I put that project reluctantly aside.

My second project was called SEUNA. The reason that I put this one aside was that I wasn't too happy with the SEUNA script. However my third language ... BEU (from now on referred to as béu ... by the way, the diacritic above the "e" indicated a high tone) seems like it will carry on to fruition.

What interests me most in linguistics is that fascinating area where logic, grammar and semantics intersect. I appreciate the elegant patterns that are found in natural languages. However most natural languages have elements which I don't like. Such as the tendency of natural languages to appropriate existing grammatical particles when evolving a new structure. Probably the forces that drive natural language change are fundamentally unable to form a language sufficiently "efficient" and "elegant" for me ... evolution by "decree" rather than natural forces just seems so much more easy.

Also I have always been a perfectionist ... keenly aware of all the imperfections that everyday life entails. I have always had the feeling that in order to build perfection you must start at the very bottom ... and I also have had the feeling that language is the most basic thing^* that makes us human. Hence the first step to making a better world is to develop a logical, elegant and beautiful language.

All of the above motivated me to construct a new language.

The best constructed language which I have so far come across was CEQLI. However it was not much more than a sketch. Also the two languages created by Dirk Elzinga ... TEPA and SHEMSPREG were also very neat. However again they were not fully thought out ... not complete languages. I intend that béu will be a fully formed language.

..

The "bubble fountain" above is how I see the world 4,000 languages (OK I haven't drawn 4,000 bubbles ... pretend) of the world. The vertical axis is complexity. The black line at the bottom represents zero ... the way that a group of people would communicate initially if they all spoke totally different languages and were forced to associate together by some twist of fate. There would be zero grammaticisation ... it would be a very inefficient means of communication and I would presume quite frustrating to try and converse in. The horizontal axis represents how far the different languages diverge from each other (this "divergence" should be multi-dimensional because of course languages diverge from each other in many many different ways ... but I am afraid we must make do with one dimension on my little chart).

You will notice that the simple languages at the bottom of the chart differ less from each other less than the more complex languages at the top. These simple languages tend to have one concept to one word ... they are analytic. Now a simple language is just as fit-for-purpose as a complicated language. And I certainly didn't want complexity for complexity's sake : I just wanted a language that was easy to learn and that would appear to be "natural". Hence the structure of béu is not a million miles away from the structure of English ... or Mandarin. In its final form béu seems like a natural language : the grammar and the "patterns" in the language wouldn't be considered out of place in a natural language.

In its long history (HARWENG => SEUNA => béu) it has changed many many times. It has gone thru' many iterations^**. I would change one part of the grammar and then find that this change didn't fit with something else. So I would change it back, or modify the "something else", or maybe try out a completely new paradigm. This happened many many times. I suppose the changes that happened in in the development of béu are similar to the diachronic changes that happen to natural languages, and hence béu ended up looking quite naturalistic.

^* I believe that language co-evolved with the increase in the human cranial capacity ... so language has been with us for well over a million years.

^** A good analogy to this how a protein takes its shape. This is a long linear chain molecule that folds up on itself to takes on a very definite and complicated shape. The final shape is determined by a series of movements that are initiated by the attractive and repulsive forces that the various links in the chain have for each other. In a similar way the final shape of béu was determined by the way that different grammatical patterns and phonological patterns either clashed with each other, or matched with each other through a number of successive iteration.

..

Addendum ... When talking about grammar I follow the lead given by R.M.W. Dixon in "Basic Linguistic Theory". I would thoroughly recommend this book. As well as giving a broad topological perspective of the World's languages, it puts the convoluted terminology that has grown up in the field of linguistics over the years, firmly in its place.