One WORD language

TheBluesader

New member
Mar 9, 2008
1,003
0
0
I just had an idea and I wonder what fellow Escapists think.

Would it be possible to have an entire language that was just a single word, where different meanings would be implied simply by tone of voice? Obviously the people speaking it would have to have super-trained hearing to pick out the slight variations in tone.

Or if that's impossible, then how about the word being pronounced in different ways? I guess that would technically make them multiple words, but they'd still all be represented by the same symbols or letters.

Or if THAT'S too much, then a language with only a handful of words, like less than 20?

Thoughts?
 

tomtom94

aka "Who?"
May 11, 2009
3,373
0
0
It'd have to have fewer words than the Eleventh Edition of Newspeak, to the point of being close to impossible.
 

'Aredor

New member
Jan 24, 2010
218
0
0
Sure, it'd have to be "fuck", though. As The Wire taught us, you can solve a crime by only communicating with variations of "fuck".

Seriously, though: No, that'd be just stupid, impractical and unnecessary.
 

Nocta-Aeterna

New member
Aug 3, 2009
709
0
0
I don't think you can cover a wide enough spectrum lot of meanings, intentions and grammar simply by changing the pronounciation and intonation of a single word or even accompanying body language. Communication is a pretty complex thing after all. Also, don't pokémon communicate like this?
 

Serenegoose

Faerie girl in hiding
Mar 17, 2009
2,016
0
0
TheBluesader said:
I just had an idea and I wonder what fellow Escapists think.

Would it be possible to have an entire language that was just a single word, where different meanings would be implied simply by tone of voice? Obviously the people speaking it would have to have super-trained hearing to pick out the slight variations in tone.

Or if that's impossible, then how about the word being pronounced in different ways? I guess that would technically make them multiple words, but they'd still all be represented by the same symbols or letters.

Or if THAT'S too much, then a language with only a handful of words, like less than 20?

Thoughts?
Whilst it would be technically possible to have a very small, animal language (food here, predators here, go this way, etc) based on one word, it would be evolutionarily unlikely to succeed unless the differences in tone were massive - as the whole reason birds/monkeys/dogs have different cries is to make sure their meaning is instantly clear - any ambiguity is a recipe for death.
 

Treefingers

New member
Aug 1, 2008
1,071
0
0
Malkovich malkovich malkovich, malkovich malkovich malkovich MALKOVICH malkovich!


Seriously though... you could imply basic meanings with few words and tone of voice, but why would you want to limit your expressive capabilities?
 

Airhead

New member
May 8, 2008
141
0
0
1st option: considering there are thousands of different words in languages, I think that human voice organs would not be able to produce sounds that precise, nor would our ears be able to pick up such minute differences. You'd have to be some kind of a cyborg, basically.

2nd option: when there is a different pronunciation of a word, and the different pronunciation has a different meaning, why not consider it an altogether separate word? Writing it with the same symbols would just be needlessly confusing.

3rd option: possible for simpler creatures, but we're kind of too smart and creative to get by with just 20 words. Yay for the human race.

All languages are complex business, because people are complex. They are how they are because we need them to be like that.
 

Nevyrmoore

New member
Aug 13, 2009
783
0
0
Well if you live on the Discworld, you can find a language composed entirely of shouts and screams. So, don't say "Aargh!" because that means "Quick! More boiling oil!"
 

TheBluesader

New member
Mar 9, 2008
1,003
0
0
Thanks for the opinions so far.

Because I've really nothing else to add at this point, I have to say my favorite made-up language is Tamarian, from the Star Trek: TNG episode "Darmok." For those who do not recall, it was an entirely metaphorical language. The only way you could speak it was to learn Tamarian mythology so you could learn which descriptive phrases taken from mythological stories meant what. It would be like if we said "Zeus's thunderbolts" instead of "I'm angry and about to come after you," or "Behold the Ward of Ceres - Cupid with Psyche" instead of "Check out that girl over there - I seriously want her."

I don't know what that has to do with anything, but...there we go.
 

Biosophilogical

New member
Jul 8, 2009
3,264
0
0
It could be a slightly long word, where different sections are associated with different areas of thought, meaning you could convey a message through the varying tone of each section. So 'greeting-present state (worried, happy, in danger etc)-indication of state source (predator, food, direction etc)-course of action (it could be a social action (eating, talking, sex..ing(?)), a reaction (fight, flight, reach a concession)-closer (farewell, stick together, inquire as to their own state etc). In this manner, you could have an entire language built upon tonal pre-requisites.
 

Jonluw

New member
May 23, 2010
7,245
0
0
I don't think it can be done. But if you, for some reason was going to try it, at least your choices are narrowed down to only three words: Smurf, Marklar, or Aardvark. (Why Aardvark, you say? Because I like it.)
 

Superbeast

Bound up the dead triumphantly!
Jan 7, 2009
669
0
0
It could be possible.

There are African languages that are entirely made up of tongue clicks, clucks and a few whistles thrown in. It originated because it makes hunting much easier for the tribesmen, as the sounds do not travel as well as distinct words to (even whispers). I am not talking about the Xhosa language (which has clicks in normal words), but a small tribe that exclusively communicates in that way. I'm looking for a link, but it was on a BBC programme where a female anthropologist was tracing the origin of humanity.

In light of that, a language with one word could be possible, but I do not know if it could be to a complex enough level for modern life - for example how would it deal with science, given the nuances and very important distinctions that are required?
 

D0WNT0WN

New member
Sep 28, 2008
808
0
0
tomtom94 said:
It'd have to have fewer words than the Eleventh Edition of Newspeak, to the point of being close to impossible.
I quite like the 1984 reference, jolly good.

My one word launguage would just be Blah, think of all the imaginative conversations.
 

Player 2

New member
Feb 20, 2009
739
0
0
Sure, it'd have to be "fuck", though. As The Wire taught us, you can solve a crime by only communicating with variations of "fuck".

Seriously, though: No, that'd be just stupid, impractical and unnecessary.
I'd actually agree with you. Fuck is one of the most versatile words in the English language.
 

shadyh8er

New member
Apr 28, 2010
1,778
0
0
This reminds me of that one scene in the first episode of Elfen Lied when Nyu (that's her name because that's literally ALL she can say) tries and fails to communicate her need to go to the bathroom. Then again, I think that was more because of the stupidity of the people she was talking too. Seriously, Nyu was grabbing her crotch and jumping up and down. That's USL (universal sign lang.) for "I GOTTA PEE! NOW!"