On Tue, Jan 8, 2013 at 5:48 PM, Gary Shannon <[log in to unmask]> wrote:

> That's very interesting. Is different from my idea, but the results
> are the same. You get can get a very rich a detailed conlang that
> seems natural.

I call this "English Park Conlanging" - cooperating with the Nature while
trying to understand Her principles. As to the understanding, I still suck

> On Tue, Jan 8, 2013 at 3:07 AM, Nikolay Ivankov <[log in to unmask]>
> wrote:
> >
> > Well, I see no reason why couldn't the presunption of having a language
> > with no or little corpus be allpied to a "planned" conlang. In fact,
> > that's
> > precisely how my concultures look like, and that's presicely how and why
> I
> > design my conlang's evolution. The things go forgotten and reanalized. In
> > fact,in constructing a grammar, I also always building a bridge between a
> > protolang - which is in effect a language with no structure - and a
> > neolang
> > which has some features I want. And then, starting with a lang with
> little
> > known structure, I'm trying to guess how I, as an "illiterate speaker",
> [---snip---]