Print

Print


Yes, there are a great many things about this conlang that are naive,
and just plain wrong, but for the average reader it's probably
perfectly adequate for the job. As much as we would like to see every
conlang be a work of art, some are just minimally utilitarian. And
that's probably O.K.

--gary

On Mon, Apr 2, 2012 at 8:49 AM, Alex Fink <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
> On Mon, 2 Apr 2012 10:05:21 -0500, Patrick Dunn <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
>
>>The indefinite article is dropped other than for emphasis, which makes my
>>head spin.  When would one emphasize the indefinite article?  Maybe if
>>you're saying "no, seriously, plant this idea in your discourse model
>>*now*."
...
>
> The thing about this conlang that makes me cringe is that the lexicon (which
> is also a phrasebook; many entries are for sentences) having a column for
> pronunciation, which is given in newspaper phonetics.  Maybe the phonetics
> are even consistent; I viscerally couldn't read enough to tell.