On Thu, 15 Nov 2007, Philip Newton wrote:
> On Nov 14, 2007 6:00 PM,  <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
> > In a message dated 11/14/2007 10:08:42 AM Central Standard Time,
> >
> > [log in to unmask] writes:
> > > >To go back to the religion thing: if you
> > > >truly believe that everyone who doesn't share your faith is
> > > > going to be damned for all eternity, how can you in good
> > > > conscience *not* proselytize?
> > >
> > > I agree. But aren't we getting close to dangerous territory here?
> >
> > Can you be more specific about "dangerous territory"?
> I interpret it as "no cross, no crown" territory.
One part of this thread is directing into the science vs. religion 
debate which is Cross; the other part seems to be edging around the 
ethics of (state) intervention, IMHO, which is Crown.  Neither of which 
is Conlanging.

We can always treat the title as a translation exercise :)  In 

Lla yscient es interessant, s'w ngongwenith rhen, gw phodeth ffudergw

Now I will have to research to confirm if Brithenig does treat 'fuck 
off' as a reflexive.  It seems to be normal in Romance languages for 
turning transitive verbs into intransitives.

- andrew.