Print

Print


For what it's worth, Jim Hopkins and I have done this, where I'll write 
him in Alurhsa and he'll respond in Itlani.  It does work, but it takes 
quite a bit of time since we're each translating out of the other's 
language in order to give a meaningful response.


Brett Williams wrote:
> I was reading something Jim wrote to me in gjax-zym-byn, and thinking
> about how of course it's much easier to read a language than to write
> in it.  I can read gzb well enough with the dictionary, even though I
> can hardly say anything.  So I thought that a fun way to learn each
> other's conlangs could be to have a bilingual conversation where each
> person wrote in their own language.
>
> Perhaps it could work as a group activity too-- we could set up a
> bilingual Klingon/Lojban list, for instance.  Come to think of it,
> almost all of the conlang lists are bilingual, but it's always
> conlang+natlang (usually English, but I know Lojban at least has
> sleepy French and Spanish forums).  Why not try conlang+conlang, too?
>
> I had an absurd thought that you could take it further, and have one
> big group multilingual conversation where everyone spoke in their own
> language.  Of course no one would understand more than a tiny slice of
> it.  Perhaps people could also provide glossaries, interlinears or
> translations to some intermediary language (English, most likely) to
> facilitate conversation.
>
> I just think it could be cool, to have one person say their language's
> version of "yo wazzup" and then someone else responds with their
> language's version of "not much, dog".
>
> <3,
> mungojelly
> aka
> AKA
>