Print

Print


-------- 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! http://portal.gmx.net/de/go/dsl