Print

Print


>IMO you should make up your own features, describing your conlang on
>its own terms. Some of the most interesting conlangs are those that
>are systemically coherent but not analysable in terms of models
>developed to handle the major natlangs.

I second this opinion. Though the work I've done on my 3 (now 4) conlangs
doesn't even remptely approach that given many of the members here to their
conlangs, I found that Bes Dis'z began to shape more of itself, and many
features I first thoujght I had to include became redundant or unnecerssary.

E.g.
Thinking of the prefixes "s-", "t-" and "ts-" as marking "acquired",
"associative", and "intrinsic" instead of present/punctual,
habitual/frequentive, and "so habitual it would be considered a part of the
subject".

Thinking of the low tone given a work as marking a "table" for the sentence
rather than calling it a "modifer/adverb/clause".

- I thought that this thread was dead.
- ripěs'sh rakót rus both'ts fat'ch
- (intr)-I-believe-(completed) (intr)-it-kill flow opinions-(composing)
here-at

_________________________________________________________________
The new MSN 8: smart spam protection and 2 months FREE*
http://join.msn.com/?page=features/junkmail