Print

Print


Jan van Steenbergen wrote:

>On a sidenote: I agree with Peter that there is something odd about the
fact
>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
yours
>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
Slavic
>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.

M

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