Oh, don't be like that. Imagine if this was a sci-fi writers list - you'd have a mix of astro-physicists, A-level holders and folks that dropped physics in secondary school. It doesn't mean any of them will be better writers.
Linguistics is (sort of) a science and, like any science (or art, or social science, or engineering or whatever) when it gets more complicated requires more complicated language to explain - a language (is it Terry Pratchett who first said this) originally used by apes to explain to other apes where the best fruit is is hardly going to be useful when describing the details of sub-atomic particle interaction or the way in which lentition works. While I'm sure everyone on list tries to explain as much as possible in layman's terms, sometimes it can get a bit complicated and - like this nasal thing - have contradicting applications or theories or understandings. Thus is life.

And on the spiritual level of the conlang, what I do is just to leave it outside the door and do it in my own time - I'm sure you can join another list as well if you want a conculture or religio-spiritual discussion - you don't have to leave this one. 

I hope you haven't already left and will reconsider

Sam



On 30 Jan 2011, at 00:36, Lars Finsen <[log in to unmask]> wrote:

> Patrick Dunn wrote:
> 
>> quoting me:
>>> 
>>> I think this also is a freaked out terminology. Someone ought to do some thinking here. "Stop" should clearly be limited to sounds that stop the airflow, while "continuant" should be the opposite, sounds that can be pronounced continuously.
>> 
>> Why "clearly?"  I have done some thinking and see no reason why "stop" can't refer to the oral airflow and not the nasal airflow.
> 
> Well, then I can't help you. Good luck.
> 
>>> I guess linguists are doing these things on purpose, more or less
>>> consciously, in order to limit access to their field. It's common enough among experts in any field. Make your terminology as nontransparent as possible, then you can sit on your pinnacle talking your Greek with your clique of co-experts while dilettants in your surroundings don't get a thing and think you must be very wise.
>> 
>> Why are you being deliberately insulting?
> 
> Sorry if you feel deliberately insulted. I admit that I am trying to tease you academics a little. At the same time I am trying to keep my head level, and I find that I can't do that and at the same time accept stops that don't do any stopping and noncontinuants that are continuous. It's just too hilarious. Too bad if you can't see it.
> 
>> Linguists have a lot of flaws (I, for example, am eccentric to the breaking point of academic respectability), but I don't know many linguists who aren't excited and thrilled to share their field with laypeople.  This list is evidence of that, I think.  No one here is attacking you or trying to exclude you from the conversation, so please remain polite and respectful with us.
> 
> Yes, Sir, I am sincerely thankful for the efforts and time you people have spent in sharing and what I have been so lucky as to be allowed to learn from you.
> 
> But I think perhaps the time has come for me to say goodbye to the Conlang list. Because although I have learnt a great amount of facts here, thanks, thanks, and also learnt to like and respect all of you as a bunch of funny little animals, brighter than the average, there are also a couple of problems that I can best solve off-list, I think. First, I feel that the spiritual presence of my conworld has weakened, and I think it is linked to the constant exposure to the fact that it is just one among many conworlds and that its languages are just a handful among many hundreds if not thousands of conlangs. Second, I am being made self-conscious through my obvious inferiority in learning and standing here, and it is my experience that self-consciousness is very detrimental to any achievement other than the plain ordinary, especially of the spiritual kind, so it is perhaps best that I resume the path of the lone searcher again. You won't miss me.
> 
>>> In principle, linguists would be expected to be more conscious about such effects than others, but the opposite seems to be the case. Many other sciences care more about their relations to the public than linguistics.
>> 
>> I wonder what your evidence for that claim is.  I think the opposite is
>> more likely true: the public is less interested in linguistics than other sciences, because most people aren't even aware there *is* such a science.
> 
> Rather because its terminology is more counterintuitive and difficult to handle than that of most sciences. And possibly because they don't want to be reminded of their grammar classes back in school.
> 
> And the syndrome of terminological wall-building that affects experts worldwide no matter what field in fact is a serious burden to me personally, as I am employed in bringing foreign text written mostly by experts to the home readership. I toil day in and out struggling to find ways to put it understandably, because I cannot as a professional deliver the kind of garbage that I am sometimes fed. So please excuse me for venting a little when it comes to a point, or two.
> 
> LEF