Please note: I do not blog here. I only created this account so I can comment on blogs that are hosted by Vox. For my irregular blogging on languages, politics and other stuff, please visit: http://saiminu.blogspot.com/
Or alternatively, please visit my creative writing website at http://www.damonlord.info
Thanks.
I really don't like the changes Vox has undergone since I started blogging here, so I've up an moved. I will miss the pink robots, but alas. Catch you over at www.leahclarke.wordpress.com , bitches.
Today I will be talking about compound words and how they are formed with eidea.
Let’s recall: meta-eidea are just a definition to call a group of very similar eidea among people the same. In addition you may have seen me writing about an interlinked group of meta-eidea. This can mean they copy compound words, but this does not have to be the case necessarily.
Let me make this more concrete with an example.
[cart]
For most people this will be a single eidos and it will look something like the image I used. For some people its will take more and could form something like: [two][wheel][transport][vehicle]
I could also give you an example which shows the opposite.
[peanut butter]
Noticed me not writing [peanut][butter]? For some people it might really be something like [peanut][paste], but for most people it is in fact one single eidos.
Ok, but how do you tell when something is a single eidos, or a group of eidea? Well, you can not really tell, because it differs among people(1). That’s where meta-eidea roughly come in.
I will predict where to put the boundaries. Sometimes you will see me write a compound word as a single meta-eidos, sometimes you will see me write one word as a group of meta-eidea; English does not always follow what really happens in my mind but then again it might work different in your own mind too.
This also is makes making languages such a difficult task, It has to work for everybody, or at least give them enough pointers to reproduce the intended meaning.
There are a few cases where the break is very obvious. Witness this example.
Note: From now on I will group meta-eidea with a distinct role (objects) with round brackets.
(Pete and John) threw (me) (a yellow ball).
Adjectives
First notice [yellow][ball]. Yellow is an adjective, and in almost every case an adjective is a separate eidos. Exceptions are: ‘fast ball’, big bang, often derived adjectives.
Conjunction
(Pete and John) is one object but it may be very obvious Pete but also John are separate eidea. Also for conjunctions we can say for almost every case it is made up out of separate eidea. There are on the other hand a few obvious exceptions: ‘lean and mean’, ‘bed and breakfast’, something you can see as one thing.
Before closing I’d like to state a final thing. Foregoing I spoke about ‘interlinked eidea’, by this I mean that A links to B but B also links to A. In fact, there are different ways eidea can be linked and this makes room for precedence.
For instance:
apple pie versus pie apple
(a pie filled with apples) (an apple designated for use in pie)
In English sequence tells us the precedence, but when you want to draw this on paper you need to know how it is linked. I will tell you more on this subject in a later stadium.
That will be all for today. 'Next week' I will be discussing one of my most ockward theories, it will be mind bobbeling but very enlighting I dare to say.
Have a nice day!
Ferry Timmers
Footnotes:
(1) I once ran an experiment where people could choose from a single word or a compound when seeing various pictures. The results varied, even among people who speak the same language.
They now go here.
As you might know by know I have a bit of a creative definition of the phrase ‘next week’ Well this is not likely to alter so apologies on for hand for this. Last time I updated has been ages ago so let me regroup everything into this special interim article.
Language (my definition) is a way to decipher code in a way it can be understood by different receivers.
To start off, the goal of this blog is to let me show the world my theories, what I think what languages makes tick, and the development of my very own language: O-lingua.
With O-linuga I try to make a language using concepts that are new to everybody. It is all based on my theory of eidea.
Note: singular: eidos, plural: eidea.
Eidea are what I like to call the codes of thought. They are little pieces of information that float in our mind. I like to make it a bit more specific by only calling a code we can put our finger on an eidos. Still it is e very broad definition. Eidea can be about: a thing, a feeling, a memory, a figment of imagination, and a definition, something very concrete, something abstract. I could go on like this for a while, but I hope you get the picture.
Because eidea can have so many forms, they are also very personal. And therefore I define meta-eidea.
Meta-eidos is an eidos that not really exists, but made to be able to speak generally about eidea. An eidos itself is personally, but we may notice from person to person eidea that are very similar, or have a similar meaning. Then we can make a prototype of these eidea, and give it a name that everybody understands. The easiest meta-eidea to call are concrete things like [chair], [table] or [spoon]. But still, did I mean a diner table, or a coffee table? What color?
It is practically impossible to make a meta-eidos that works for everybody, keep that in mind.
Note: From now on I will use square brackets to indicate meta-eidea.
Context. When I speak about context than I mean the environment in with eidea are being build or parsed. You could easily describe it as ‘the state of mind’ that exist at the moment a person is practicing language. Because there are infinite parameters to a context, I will not try to map it. It is only important to state it has a large effect on how language or eidea are formed. Furthermore I’d like to state that chaos theory applies on context.
Object is a definition used to be even more general about eidea. An object can either be a meta-eidos or a group of meta-eidea interlinked. I like to use it when the exact definition of the eidos does not really matter for my example.
Roles. When reading or forming a sentence you will have a number of objects, and an action. You need to know what the relation of a specific object to the action is in order to know where the sentence is about. This relation I call a role (the role of an object).
Particles (my definition) are small eidea that tell something about other eidea or the relation between eidea. I also tend to call them semi-eidea, because they have single not really a definition. Particles are used very often to specify a role, and it might actually provide a link between objects.
Links are relations between eidea. The link can be strong, weak or something in between. I will discuss the effect of this in a future article.
The buffer is the area of the mind where eidea are stored. Eidea need to be stored temporarily before they can be deciphered and the meaning of a sentence or subsequent a story can be understood. The role of an object actually influences at what position in the buffer it will be stored. This helps to understand a sentence more quickly. Different languages have different buffer usage; that is why I distinguish 3 dimensions:
Buffer width: the number of distinguishable roles a specified language uses.
Buffer height: the average size or complexity of the objects a specified language has.
Buffer depth: the number of objects that a specified language can hold at a time.
Note: The buffer is an element of context.
To return to my definition of language and to include the eidea theory I’d like to state: What a language is and O-lingua has to be is a way to decipher eidea so that different receivers still get (more or less) the same message. In addition for O-lingua I want it to be as easy and unambiguous as possible for a sender to decipher the eidea (s)he wants to transmit.
I will introduce a few more shocking theories ‘next week’.
Have a nice day!
Ferry Timmers
No joy from Weird Tales, which is to be expected. Not sure what to do with Reginald now.
Well, seeing as the official announcement has been made, I guess I can finally spill the beans:
I'm doing the copyediting for Mur Lafferty's Playing For Keeps.
Needless to say, I am stoked beyond comprehension.
Why, hello there, first writing-related paycheck!
So, if you go over to the Swarm Press site, you can get an eyeful of the book that I'm currently copyediting.
Brave Men Run. That's right, bitches.
This book is the one that I was gushing about yesterday. It really is that good. It's such a strange feeling to edit a book that I've known about for ages. I'm also glad that I it didn't reach the top of my TBR pile sooner. Editing this doesn't feel like a job at all.
So, as I mentioned in a previous entry, I'm copyediting for Permuted Press. Right now I'm going through two books, both of which are top-secret. They're the first novels that the new Swarm Press imprint will put out--at least, if things go according to plan.
That in itself is already pretty sweet. After all, I like copyediting. In fact, I wouldn't mind ending up in that field when I'm done with uni.
The awesomeness continues, however. I can't really say too much, but I can tell you this: it's a struggle to copyedit one of the projects I'm working on, because it's so frigging good. Every couple of pages I speed up, just wanting to know what happens next. Then I reel myself in and remind myself that I'm supposed to care about the grammar and style more than the plot.
But it's so doo-diddly-darn hard.
