-------- Original-Nachricht --------
> Datum: Sun, 17 Oct 2010 11:45:08 -0400
> Von: Matthew Martin <[log in to unmask]>
> An: [log in to unmask]
> Betreff: Re: Conlangs based on Endangered/Dead Languages

> I think it would be equally hard to write a truly offensive language and
> to 
> write an a posteriori language that offends no one.  Short of writing
> something 
> explicitly racist, or obtusely judgmental, how offensive can a conlang 
> reference grammar and dictionary be?  On the other hand, I'm sure some 
> French speakers get really upset when the discover French-derivative 
> conlangs. 

Oh... I once closed a language description thinking that the inventor was a <EXPLETIE> and a <EXPLETIVE> <EXPLETIVE> who <BEEEEP>. And that language was a priori. It was the language aUI and Weilgart translated 'female' as yv which means not-active. I am not a radical feminist, but that really bugged me (enough to blog about it). That was the one time, I thought that an a priori language was truely and utterly offensive.

So yeah, it does happen...
Sanja'xen mi'lanja'kynha ,mi'la'ohix'ta jilih, nka.

My life would be easy if it was not so hard!

GMX DSL Doppel-Flat ab 19,99 &euro;/mtl.! Jetzt auch mit 
gratis Notebook-Flat!