Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.

Re: Glossotechnia

Expand Messages
  • Logan Kearsley
    ... It might be worth me trying to play with those slightly relaxed rules, then. ... There would be the first kind of card. And then either option for
    Message 1 of 9 , Feb 17, 2013
    • 0 Attachment
      On 17 February 2013 23:31, Daniel Demski <dranorter@...> wrote:
      > On Sun, Feb 17, 2013 at 11:36 PM, Logan Kearsley <chronosurfer@...>wrote:
      >
      >> Aha. We've always been very strict about not using any existing
      >> language to assist in definition- you get it purely from charade and
      >> game-language use, or not at all, no explaining or elaborating
      >> allowed.
      >>
      >
      > Elaboration after coining was really fun. It probably slowed down play, and
      > the resulting complexity didn't get used much, but it gave our language a
      > culture, in a way I thought was better than the cultural rules.

      It might be worth me trying to play with those slightly relaxed rules, then.

      > Trying to understand exactly what you're suggesting here. So there would be
      > a pair of cards like,
      >
      > Topicality (Grammar): Each sentence has a topic and comment, distinguished
      > by word order, affix, particle, or another mechanism.
      > Topicality (Express a Category): Coin a method for expressing topicality.
      >
      > Or, just the second card? Or, just a generic Express a Category card,
      > matchable with any Category in play? And would these cards need to be
      > played for topicality to be expressed, or would someone be allowed to try
      > and coin the distinctions without them?

      There would be the first kind of card. And then either option for
      "Topicality (Express a Category)" or just generic "Express a
      Category"; I do not have good intuitions for which would turn out to
      be more useful / result in better play.
      I would say these cards do not need to be in play *if someone can
      charade really well and coin the distinctions in the basic fashion*.
      Their purpose is to introduce an extra avenue to get complex grammar
      into the language more easily, on top of the charade mechanism.

      > The reason I don't like having something like the first card is because
      > then all these category markings would be obligatory. I want someone to be
      > able to get one of these cards and then coin an optional way of making the
      > topic, definiteness, etc. specific.

      I would think you could get "optional" marking by introducing
      "non-specified" as one of the distinctions to be made in any given
      category. But there's certainly room for experimentation to be done
      here to see if that's really the best way to go about it.

      > Also, yes, changing the whole wordlist is a problem. I meant to add at the
      > end: "If this affects previous vocabulary and grammar, the changes are made
      > by consensus of the other players." Some such decisions could be left until
      > later.
      >
      > Maybe such a powerful card should start out "instead of coining a word".

      Those two restrictions combined would work well to make the card
      reasonably balanced, I think.

      > Tense, person, and number shouldn't need a card I think

      Oh, I think tense, person, and number *should*. Just to be able to
      force the distinctions to come into effect when other players aren't
      cooperating with you.

      > what if these cards had to come up in order to be distinctions?

      Then you might end up with an artificially inflated count of game
      languages that are forced not to make those distinctions. As I said
      above, I think you should be able to introduce whatever distinctions
      you want if you can successfully do so via charades or in-language
      description.

      > There are also some fun distinctions which probably don't deserve this sort
      > of explicit, card-based treatment, like animacy, size (I mean, like
      > diminutive), familiarity, good versus bad, "us" versus "them".

      Animacy could be profitably added in the form of a syntax card, or a
      morpho-syntax card; we don't get many (any) animacy hierarchies in the
      games I play so far. (Are there morpho-syntax cards? I don't recall...
      I suppose you could get the effects of morpho-syntax cards just by
      combining various other category distinctions and syntax cards.)
      Case would be a good Category card to add.
      The rest of the ones you list are things I would expect to see as
      examples of semantic categories listed on the "There's Another Word
      For That" card.

      -l.
    • Daniel Demski
      I am still thinking about the advantages versus disadvantages of having the Grammatical Distinction card rather than just Coin Grammar cards. Given that we re
      Message 2 of 9 , Feb 19, 2013
      • 0 Attachment
        I am still thinking about the advantages versus disadvantages of having the
        Grammatical Distinction card rather than just Coin Grammar cards. Given
        that we're only playing a two hour game each time, I'm not sure both cards
        would come up very often. I'm going to try it with just the Coin Grammar.


        On Mon, Feb 18, 2013 at 2:01 AM, Logan Kearsley <chronosurfer@...>wrote:

        > On 17 February 2013 23:31, Daniel Demski <dranorter@...> wrote:
        > > On Sun, Feb 17, 2013 at 11:36 PM, Logan Kearsley <chronosurfer@...
        > >wrote:
        > >
        > >> Aha. We've always been very strict about not using any existing
        > >> language to assist in definition- you get it purely from charade and
        > >> game-language use, or not at all, no explaining or elaborating
        > >> allowed.
        > >>
        > >
        > > Elaboration after coining was really fun. It probably slowed down play,
        > and
        > > the resulting complexity didn't get used much, but it gave our language a
        > > culture, in a way I thought was better than the cultural rules.
        >
        > It might be worth me trying to play with those slightly relaxed rules,
        > then.
        >
        > > Trying to understand exactly what you're suggesting here. So there would
        > be
        > > a pair of cards like,
        > >
        > > Topicality (Grammar): Each sentence has a topic and comment,
        > distinguished
        > > by word order, affix, particle, or another mechanism.
        > > Topicality (Express a Category): Coin a method for expressing topicality.
        > >
        > > Or, just the second card? Or, just a generic Express a Category card,
        > > matchable with any Category in play? And would these cards need to be
        > > played for topicality to be expressed, or would someone be allowed to try
        > > and coin the distinctions without them?
        >
        > There would be the first kind of card. And then either option for
        > "Topicality (Express a Category)" or just generic "Express a
        > Category"; I do not have good intuitions for which would turn out to
        > be more useful / result in better play.
        > I would say these cards do not need to be in play *if someone can
        > charade really well and coin the distinctions in the basic fashion*.
        > Their purpose is to introduce an extra avenue to get complex grammar
        > into the language more easily, on top of the charade mechanism.
        >
        > > The reason I don't like having something like the first card is because
        > > then all these category markings would be obligatory. I want someone to
        > be
        > > able to get one of these cards and then coin an optional way of making
        > the
        > > topic, definiteness, etc. specific.
        >
        > I would think you could get "optional" marking by introducing
        > "non-specified" as one of the distinctions to be made in any given
        > category. But there's certainly room for experimentation to be done
        > here to see if that's really the best way to go about it.
        >
        > > Also, yes, changing the whole wordlist is a problem. I meant to add at
        > the
        > > end: "If this affects previous vocabulary and grammar, the changes are
        > made
        > > by consensus of the other players." Some such decisions could be left
        > until
        > > later.
        > >
        > > Maybe such a powerful card should start out "instead of coining a word".
        >
        > Those two restrictions combined would work well to make the card
        > reasonably balanced, I think.
        >
        > > Tense, person, and number shouldn't need a card I think
        >
        > Oh, I think tense, person, and number *should*. Just to be able to
        > force the distinctions to come into effect when other players aren't
        > cooperating with you.
        >
        > > what if these cards had to come up in order to be distinctions?
        >
        > Then you might end up with an artificially inflated count of game
        > languages that are forced not to make those distinctions. As I said
        > above, I think you should be able to introduce whatever distinctions
        > you want if you can successfully do so via charades or in-language
        > description.
        >
        > > There are also some fun distinctions which probably don't deserve this
        > sort
        > > of explicit, card-based treatment, like animacy, size (I mean, like
        > > diminutive), familiarity, good versus bad, "us" versus "them".
        >
        > Animacy could be profitably added in the form of a syntax card, or a
        > morpho-syntax card; we don't get many (any) animacy hierarchies in the
        > games I play so far. (Are there morpho-syntax cards? I don't recall...
        > I suppose you could get the effects of morpho-syntax cards just by
        > combining various other category distinctions and syntax cards.)
        > Case would be a good Category card to add.
        > The rest of the ones you list are things I would expect to see as
        > examples of semantic categories listed on the "There's Another Word
        > For That" card.
        >
        > -l.
        >
      • Jim Henry
        ... What about something like this: Specify how, when and whether [agency / topicality / definiteness / ... / wildcard grammatical category ] is marked. By
        Message 3 of 9 , Feb 19, 2013
        • 0 Attachment
          On Mon, Feb 18, 2013 at 1:31 AM, Daniel Demski <dranorter@...> wrote:
          > Topicality (Grammar): Each sentence has a topic and comment, distinguished
          > by word order, affix, particle, or another mechanism.
          > Topicality (Express a Category): Coin a method for expressing topicality.
          >
          > Or, just the second card? Or, just a generic Express a Category card,

          > The reason I don't like having something like the first card is because
          > then all these category markings would be obligatory. I want someone to be

          What about something like this:

          "Specify how, when and whether [agency / topicality / definiteness /
          ... / wildcard grammatical category ] is marked. By affix, mutation
          or separate particle? (Coin one or more affixes or particles.)
          Mandatory or optional? On which types of word?"

          --
          Jim Henry
          http://www.pobox.com/~jimhenry/
          http://www.jimhenrymedicaltrust.org
        • Daniel Demski
          ... Come to think of it I have never played an add inflectional category card and then had someone follow up with an additional inflection (invariably
          Message 4 of 9 , Feb 19, 2013
          • 0 Attachment
            On Tue, Feb 19, 2013 at 6:08 PM, Jim Henry <jimhenry1973@...> wrote:

            > What about something like this:
            >
            > "Specify how, when and whether [agency / topicality / definiteness /
            > ... / wildcard grammatical category ] is marked. By affix, mutation
            > or separate particle? (Coin one or more affixes or particles.)
            > Mandatory or optional? On which types of word?"
            >
            > --
            > Jim Henry
            > http://www.pobox.com/~jimhenry/
            > http://www.jimhenrymedicaltrust.org
            >


            Come to think of it I have never played an "add inflectional category" card
            and then had someone follow up with an additional inflection (invariably
            someone creates a past tense and nobody creates any others). So "coin one
            or more" sounds like it would be just fine. :)
          Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.