Merging grammar
Merging grammar
During my time conlanging (not very long), I've found I tend to automatically split up my grammar into lots of very distinct "bits" for different things, like description, tense, conjunctions, questions etc. - but I'm curious to know if this is how most people do it. Or do some people like to create a single grammatical "entity" of sorts that can encompass all if not significant portions of the grammar? If this is a thing people do, how can I explore this? I've just found that this very broken up grammatical organisation seems a bit botched, even if it all still works together nicely.
Re: Merging grammar
This is personal subjective organization. You don't have to worry about it- in fact you're probably more organized than most of us. I come up with disorganized big ideas and then encounter problems which I then solve as I go along. If I am going to show it then I organize it.
Re: Merging grammar
I'm thinking less about how I organise it, but more how I design it. I make all of these things work in their own way, but are there people that approach their grammar as a single entity, rather than lots of little things?Isfendil wrote:This is personal subjective organization. You don't have to worry about it- in fact you're probably more organized than most of us. I come up with disorganized big ideas and then encounter problems which I then solve as I go along. If I am going to show it then I organize it.
Re: Merging grammar
As far as design or discovery go, I tend towards "single entity", whereas organisation goes "little thingery". I've long been an advocate of newish conlangers starting big --- with a poem or meaty text of some kind --- and then working down from there, figuring out what everything means and how it fits together. Rather than starting with sounds and (if we're lucky!) working up from there.OTʜᴇB wrote:I'm thinking less about how I organise it, but more how I design it. I make all of these things work in their own way, but are there people that approach their grammar as a single entity, rather than lots of little things?Isfendil wrote:This is personal subjective organization. You don't have to worry about it- in fact you're probably more organized than most of us. I come up with disorganized big ideas and then encounter problems which I then solve as I go along. If I am going to show it then I organize it.
Re: Merging grammar
Interesting. I'm more one to start with the base components of the language and build up, rather than starting with a block of text to deconstruct.elemtilas wrote:As far as design or discovery go, I tend towards "single entity", whereas organisation goes "little thingery". I've long been an advocate of newish conlangers starting big --- with a poem or meaty text of some kind --- and then working down from there, figuring out what everything means and how it fits together. Rather than starting with sounds and (if we're lucky!) working up from there.OTʜᴇB wrote:I'm thinking less about how I organise it, but more how I design it. I make all of these things work in their own way, but are there people that approach their grammar as a single entity, rather than lots of little things?Isfendil wrote:This is personal subjective organization. You don't have to worry about it- in fact you're probably more organized than most of us. I come up with disorganized big ideas and then encounter problems which I then solve as I go along. If I am going to show it then I organize it.
But say in one conlang I have conjunctions working in this way, tense and aspect working in that way, description working in this way etc. How can I modify my approach to say in another conlang, Grammar works in this way. Full stop. Big meaty block of explanation of everything as one system, as opposed to lots of little systems working together. Is this a thing? Are there any examples of this I could have a look at?