Jan van Steenbergen wrote:

>On a sidenote: I agree with Peter that there is something odd about the
>that word building seems to enjoy so little popularity among conlangers.

 I don't find that odd. Coming up with some words can be fun, but the sheer
*bulk* required to "fill out" a language can be tedious.
 What I do find odd though is that syntax got only one vote! (actually, it
got a few more among those who made multiple choices) Had the listserv site
not locked up all three times that I tried to send my response, I
definitely would have picked syntax. With the exception of Rhean (which
started with phonological "flavour" in mind), the languages I make tend to
start as a sketch of an odd syntax, like Omurax's verblessness or
Tolborese's cross-marking PVA ergative structure, and have rather unexotic
phonologies. It's a joke how little attention I've paid to phonology: I
must reverse that for the next one.

>But on the other hand, I admit that an ardent a posteriori conlanger like
>truly is in a slightly more comfortable position than those who have to
make up
>everything from scratch. As a matter of fact, the hunt for PIE or Common
>roots takes more effort than the (sometimes rather automatic) process of
>converting them into words...

 I tend to rip words from any language, often mutating them, sometimes not.
Hanuman Zhang seems to be of the same school of thought on that -- although
I don't even attempt historical plausibility. The result is a grab-bag of
roots with mostly unrecognisable origins. As long as it sounds like what it
means, I'll take it. It does help fill out the lexicon.


"Originality is the art of concealing your source." - Michael D. Ellis