Mush Lang Speakers

Our Mushlang language was a creation by committee, but I would now like you to critique it as though it was the aim of one person. Consider its inventory, phonotactics, morphological structure, syntactic structure, as well as the words in the lexicon. Looking at it as an aesthetic object itself, what does it convey to you? There are three specific options to choose from. Please choose ONLY ONE of them.
OPTION 1. Please discuss how some aspects of our language structure reflect speakers of this language -- their physiology, their dispositions, their cultural context. That is, I want you to take our language and tell me how it reflects the entities that speak it. It may achieve some of its aims better than others. Please comment on the success of the various goals we had. You can examine our running notes for some guidance.(see file SPRING Running Notes)
Here are things you should look for when evaluating your OPTION 1 essay:
Does it talk about specifics of our language (e.g., specific word choices in our lexicon, specific details about the morphological structure, specific details about the inventory)?
Does your description of the creatures relate directly to the language specifics you discuss?
Does it discuss specific goals we identified when we started making the language? Does it comment on how successful we were?
Is it an essay? Is it clear, organized, and convey a cohesive point?
OPTION 2. Suppose our language was used in some piece of media (a novel or a film). What impressions, emotions, or feelings would you expect it would trigger in people reading/hearing it for the first time? What aspects of the language do you think contribute to those impressions, emotions, or feelings? This form of the question is actually *quite* difficult. I don't want something like "they would be confused" or "they would love it". I'd like you to comment as specifically as you can what people's reactions would be and then use our linguistic terminology to explain why. I also do not want a discussion about the way our language looks in IPA transcription. We don't have a writing system for our language, so saying "they would be confused by all the weird symbols" isn't what I'm looking for.
Here are things you should look for when evaluating your OPTION 2 essay:
Does it talk about specifics of our language (e.g., specific word choices in our lexicon, specific details about the morphological structure, specific details about the inventory)?
Does it describe specific, detailed impressions that someone would have? Does it explain WHY someone would have those impressions?
Do those impressions relate directly to the language specifics you discuss?
Is it an essay? Is it clear, organized, and convey a cohesive point?
OPTION 3. Make our language better! This was a first draft, and like all first drafts, it has its share of problems. Please identify at least one issue and then propose specific changes you'd make to the grammar to account for those. Explain how your changes address the issues you raised. You might, for example, think our inventory didn't do what it should. In that case, you'd have to give a specific new inventory, and then show how a few (maybe 5) words would change as a result. Your issue shouldn't be "it's too hard to say" or "it's too hard", unless you can explain how those are problems for a mushroom cult language.
Here are things you should look for when evaluating your OPTION 3 essay:
Does it talk about specifics of our language (e.g., specific word choices in our lexicon, specific details about the morphological structure, specific details about the inventory)?
Does it identify a specific problem with the language? Does it explain WHY that aspect is a problem?
Does it propose a specific solution? Does it show concretely how that solution would work? Does it explain how that solution eliminates the problem you raise?
Is it an essay? Is it clear, organized, and convey a cohesive point?
Regardless of which option you choose (CHOOSE ONLY ONE OPTION), please be specific about linguistic concepts we have discussed in class and use the technical terms we have introduced. Aim for 500-1000 words for this. This is worth a ton of points.
I want to mention that all the criteria we've been using still matter. These match the categories we use in our grading rubric.
Be specific and detailed; explain WHY you have the feelings you do.
Remember that this is a question about the structure of the language. Make specific, detailed references to the language. We grade primarily on this. If you want to tell a story (some people do), make sure the story relates to specifics of our language.
This is a chance to show off your new linguistic know-how. We want (ahem) specific, detailed linguistic arguments, using our technical terms (again, something in our rubric).
As we've said throughout, deep is better than broad: it's better to explain one thing deeply versus talking about a lot of things superficially. Pick one or two aspects of our language, not all of it.
This is an essay. It should be clear, logically organized, and have a central point. You should proofread for spelling, grammar, and style.