On Wed, 22 Sep 2010 15:07:53 -0500, Patrick Dunn <[log in to unmask]> wrote:

>Wow, you guys are *mean.*

Hah, yeah... I was about to say, re all this,

On Wed, 22 Sep 2010 21:44:21 +0200, Jrg Rhiemeier <[log in to unmask]>

>On Wed, 22 Sep 2010 17:49:48 +0100, R A Brown wrote:
>>  On 22/09/2010 16:25, And Rosta wrote:
>>  >  Am I, I wonder, the only one who feels a (literal)
>>  >  twinge of nausea at seeing this conlang sample? It would
>>  >  be most unfair to take my reaction to be any kind of
>>  >  just judgement of the conlang, but I find it interesting
>>  >  that a conlang can excite such a visceral response.
>>  You are not alone - tho I wouldn't describe my reaction as
>>  nausea. But it is certainly an absolute turn-off.
>Yes.  Not really nauseating, but it gives away its nature as a
>poor Tolkien rip-off.

that if Edgerton's conlang had been mman ar, there's no way I would've
known from this paltry material alone!  

Now my nose certainly does wrinkle at some of this, like the seemingly
casually invoked "Old Tongue".  And I do share the weariness at the same old
phonotactics and the same tropic Celticity.  But _poor_ ripoff -- I don't
think we can know that yet.  

Anyway, we could ask the author's perspective on this!  She's got a forum
thread (which I haven't read through yet):

[And you:

On Wed, 22 Sep 2010 11:50:39 -0700, Gary Shannon <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
>I feel that way about all use of "decorated" letters. Letters work
>fine without little hoochies and doodads above, below or around them.

I'm half surprised you don't just abandon letters, altogether!  There are
whole wonderfully ungoofy worlds of digit strings and pixel patterns and so
on out there :-p]