Print

Print


Hello!
I am a high school junior who is very interested in conlanging and I had the best time at LCC6!  I have recently been assigned to write a photo essay for my English class and I would like to write it about conlanging.  That said, I'd really like to use photos of LCC6 as posted on the LCS website, but I don't want to use any without permission.  My audience is a classroom of intelligent peers who know next to nothing about conlanging, and my essay will be an introduction to it, mostly focusing on (convincing them as to) why conlanging is awesome.  Because this is a school assignment, I probably won't release the essay on the web or anything, although I might share it with friends or whoever would like to see it.  In addition I will absolutely give credit where it is due and cite my sources as correctly as I am able.
Also, if anyone would like to or be willing to share any good photos of their conlanging for the essay, that would be greatly appreciated!
Thank you very much,
Marisa Peredo

> On Jun 3, 2015, at 5:00 AM, CONLANG automatic digest system <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
> 
> There are 15 messages totaling 686 lines in this issue.
> 
> Topics of the day:
> 
> 1. Naturalistic Grammars (3)
> 2. Romlangs ((was:: Bogolangs, again) (4)
> 3. Index Diachronica v.7.7 is out!
> 4. Theory: Molenaar's Unial (1903)
> 5. To your listserv, welcome! (6)
> 
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
> 
> Date:    Tue, 2 Jun 2015 08:57:28 +0200
> From:    taliesin the storyteller <[log in to unmask]>
> Subject: Re: Naturalistic Grammars
> 
>> On 01. juni 2015 20:28, Jeffrey Brown wrote:
>> 3. Cross off 40% of the remaining features. Almost for sure, you have too
>> many features on your list. We wouldn’t be conlangers if we didn’t like
>> interesting language features. Take out 2/5 of your features (or at least
>> 1/3). You can incorporate them in another conlang.
> 
> Then read "A grammar of Tariana" and double the amount of features you 
> have ;) Tariana is the very definition of a freaky monster raving loony 
> natlang. Unfortunately the grammar haven't been reprinted (=expensive!) 
> so try the library.
> 
> 
> t.
> 
> ------------------------------
> 
> Date:    Tue, 2 Jun 2015 08:06:23 +0100
> From:    R A Brown <[log in to unmask]>
> Subject: Romlangs ((was:: Bogolangs, again)
> 
>> On 01/06/2015 19:43, Jörg Rhiemeier wrote:
>> Hallo conlangers!
>> 
>>> On 01.06.2015 17:43, R A Brown wrote:
>>> 
>>> Bogolangs may be fun but IMO are implausible.
>> 
>> Yes.  The problem begins ...
> 
> [snip]
> 
>> ... For the same reason, I have abandoned Germanech - I
>> could not come up with a plausible background history for
>> it (the best I could do about it was to place it
>> somewhere northeast of Heidelberg in the League of Lost
>> Languages, and even that has its problems).  I have
>> stated the case here:
>> 
>> http://www.joerg-rhiemeier.de/Conlang/farewell-to-romlangs.html
> 
> Oh dear, I see it says:
> "To be plausible, [Germanech] could not have been anything
> else than a Standard Average European language, and such
> languages are overdone. I simply could not motivate myself
> to carry on with this uninteresting language."
> 
>>> I am trying, painfully slowly, to derive a (hopefully)
>>> plausible British Romlang.
> 
> To be plausible, Britainese will be a SAE language. Maybe
> that is why progress is slow.  It is not exactly the
> greatest motivation    :)
> 
> I cannot argue with what you say about Germanech itself.
> Certainly simply grafting the sound changes of one language
> onto another different language is artificial and to a
> lesser or greater degree must be a botched job.
> 
> I am not sure I go along with "... there simply is no way to
> do [Romlangs] well."  Sure, the production of Romlangs _far_
> exceeds demand and many are IMO poorly done.  But
> that does not per_se mean someone cannot do the thing well.
> 
> The section "The more interesting, the less plausible" is
> IMO largely true.  A Roman merchant ship blown off course
> onto the shores of the American continent where a Romlang
> then took root may be fun, but one should not pretend it's
> plausible.  IMO some spoil the fun element of "weird
> Romlangs" by trying to maintain the thing is plausible.
> 
> Maybe by aiming at plausibility with Britainese, I'm missing
> out on the fun.  That is possibly true.
> 
> So if Romlangs are not among the "many interesting and
> edifying things a conlanger can do", why carry on with
> Britainese?  A fair question. The only answer I can give
> is that on the introductory page to Britainese:
> "The project is to create an altlang, i.e. a language of an
> alternate history. It is the result of discussion that took
> place on the "On Creating Altlangs" thread on the Conlang
> list in February 2013, and of private exchange of emails
> following that thread, I was persuaded to begin this project."
> http://www.carolandray.plus.com/BART/index.html
> 
> Having begun it, I feel obliged to finish even tho 'twill
> inevitably be a SAE.
> 
> -- 
> Ray
> ==================================
> http://www.carolandray.plus.com
> ==================================
> Nid rhy hen neb i ddysgu.
> There's none too old to learn.
> [WELSH PROVERB]
> 
> ------------------------------
> 
> Date:    Tue, 2 Jun 2015 03:30:55 -0400
> From:    Galen Buttitta <[log in to unmask]>
> Subject: Index Diachronica v.7.7 is out!
> 
> Now featuring:
> 
>  - Proto-Algonquian to Cheyenne, which I should've included in the first
>  place but overlooked!
>  - A bunch of Bantu correspondences I attempted to work out based on a
>  book from 1919!
>  - Faroese vowels!
>  - Kalamian languages!
>  - Hiw!
> 
> As usual, you can find it at <http://is.gd/TCL_PDF>, and any feedback or
> (cited) sound-change lists are appreciated.
> 
> ------------------------------
> 
> Date:    Tue, 2 Jun 2015 00:33:12 -0700
> From:    Garth Wallace <[log in to unmask]>
> Subject: Re: Naturalistic Grammars
> 
>> On Mon, Jun 1, 2015 at 11:28 AM, Jeffrey Brown <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
>> 
>> 2. Eliminate inconsistencies. If you like the head-final and SOV of
>> Japanese, but also the case affixes and free-form word order of Latin,
>> you’ve got to choose one.
> 
> But...Japanese and Latin are both already SOV with very free word
> order, and Japanese noun particles are just a step away from being
> case affixes...
> 
> ------------------------------
> 
> Date:    Tue, 2 Jun 2015 11:46:35 +0100
> From:    And Rosta <[log in to unmask]>
> Subject: Re: Romlangs ((was:: Bogolangs, again)
> 
>>> On 2 Jun 2015 08:06, "R A Brown" <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
>> 
>> So if Romlangs are not among the "many interesting and
>> edifying things a conlanger can do", why carry on with
>> Britainese?  A fair question. The only answer I can give
>> is that on the introductory page to Britainese:
>> "The project is to create an altlang, i.e. a language of an
>> alternate history. It is the result of discussion that took
>> place on the "On Creating Altlangs" thread on the Conlang
>> list in February 2013, and of private exchange of emails
>> following that thread, I was persuaded to begin this project."
>> http://www.carolandray.plus.com/BART/index.html
>> 
>> Having begun it, I feel obliged to finish even tho 'twill
>> inevitably be a SAE.
> 
> I think I've said this before, but I'll say it again: Britainese is
> essentially a work of scholarship, not a work of art, nor a work of
> fiction. It's a best guess at what a British Romance lg would have been
> like. While it's true that the odds of it turning out exactly like
> Britainese are tiny, they're still greater than the odds of it turning out
> any particular different way, so we can read Britainese as a kind of
> prototype. I encourage you not to be so diffident, Ray: I think that if you
> finish the project it will be of lasting scholarly value. It's true that
> the project is rather fanciful by ordinary scholarly standards, but that's
> a virtue: out on the margins we escape the stultifying pressures of
> normativity.
> 
> None of the usual remarks about artlangs, such as complaints about SAE
> boringness, apply to a 'schollang' such as Britainese is or such as an
> attempt to fully realize PIE could be.
> 
> --And.
> 
> ------------------------------
> 
> Date:    Tue, 2 Jun 2015 12:03:21 +0100
> From:    R A Brown <[log in to unmask]>
> Subject: Re: Naturalistic Grammars
> 
>>> On 02/06/2015 08:33, Garth Wallace wrote:
>>> On Mon, Jun 1, 2015 at 11:28 AM, Jeffrey Brown wrote:
>>> 
>>> 2. Eliminate inconsistencies. If you like the
>>> head-final and SOV of Japanese, but also the case
>>> affixes and free-form word order of Latin, you’ve got
>>> to choose one.
>> 
>> But...Japanese and Latin are both already SOV with very
>> free word order, and Japanese noun particles are just a
>> step away from being case affixes...
> 
> Exactly! Inconsistency?  What inconsistency?
> 
> -- 
> Ray
> ==================================
> http://www.carolandray.plus.com
> ==================================
> Nid rhy hen neb i ddysgu.
> There's none too old to learn.
> [WELSH PROVERB]
> 
> ------------------------------
> 
> Date:    Tue, 2 Jun 2015 12:11:11 +0100
> From:    R A Brown <[log in to unmask]>
> Subject: Re: Romlangs ((was:: Bogolangs, again)
> 
>> On 02/06/2015 11:46, And Rosta wrote:
>> On 2 Jun 2015 08:06, R A Brown wrote:
> [snip]
>>> 
>>> Having begun it, I feel obliged to finish even tho
>>> 'twill inevitably be a SAE.
>> 
>> I think I've said this before, but I'll say it again:
>> Britainese is essentially a work of scholarship, not a
>> work of art, nor a work of fiction.
> 
> Well, thanks. And and I have often been in disagreement, so
> it is even more encouraging to have this vote of confidence
> from him.
> 
> I only wish it were as much a work of scholarship as I would
> wish.  Now, getting into the project, I wish I had started
> this years ago and given myself time to do real, in depth
> scholarship.  it really needs someone who has immersed
> himself/herself  in the diachronic development of Romance
> languages.  I'm realizing how little I really know.
> 
>> It's a best guess at what a British Romance lg would have
>> been like. While it's true that the odds of it turning
>> out exactly like Britainese are tiny, they're still
>> greater than the odds of it turning out any particular
>> different way, so we can read Britainese as a kind of
>> prototype. I encourage you not to be so diffident, Ray:
> 
> Thanks.
> 
>> I think that if you finish the project it will be of
>> lasting scholarly value. It's true that the project is
>> rather fanciful by ordinary scholarly standards, but
>> that's a virtue: out on the margins we escape the
>> stultifying pressures of normativity.
> 
> Thanks again. It may be a prototype for a successor with
> greater in depth knowledge of romance diachrony.
> 
>> None of the usual remarks about artlangs, such as
>> complaints about SAE boringness, apply to a 'schollang'
>> such as Britainese is or such as an attempt to fully
>> realize PIE could be.
> 
> OK - I must press on. I'll be disappearing to visit friends
> in Paris tomorrow until the end of the week.  But I must
> redouble my efforts when I get back.
> 
> -- 
> Ray
> ==================================
> http://www.carolandray.plus.com
> ==================================
> Nid rhy hen neb i ddysgu.
> There's none too old to learn.
> [WELSH PROVERB]
> 
> ------------------------------
> 
> Date:    Tue, 2 Jun 2015 17:29:27 +0200
> From:    Jörg Rhiemeier <[log in to unmask]>
> Subject: Re: Romlangs ((was:: Bogolangs, again)
> 
> Hallo conlangers!
> 
>>> On 02.06.2015 09:06, R A Brown wrote:
>>> 
>>> On 01/06/2015 19:43, Jörg Rhiemeier wrote:
>>> Hallo conlangers!
> [...]
>>> http://www.joerg-rhiemeier.de/Conlang/farewell-to-romlangs.html
>> 
>> Oh dear, I see it says:
>> "To be plausible, [Germanech] could not have been anything
>> else than a Standard Average European language, and such
>> languages are overdone. I simply could not motivate myself
>> to carry on with this uninteresting language."
> 
> I have to say two things about my article.  First, it just relates my 
> personal experience with Germanech and romlangs in general, and is 
> accordingly *subjective*.  Second, it was written *before* you came up 
> with your Britainese project, which turned out to be more interesting 
> than I expected an SAE romlang project to be.
> 
> Indeed, "SAE" doesn't mean that the language has to be "uninteresting".  
> It is just a (poorly-defined!) bundle of linguistic features that do not 
> rule out that something beautiful and interesting happens in the 
> language.  For instance, with my current Hesperic language family 
> project, I have some of the languages been "drawn into" the SAE language 
> area, starting with something typologically more akin to Hittite and 
> Georgian, and preserved in purer form in Old Albic.
> 
>>>> I am trying, painfully slowly, to derive a (hopefully)
>>>> plausible British Romlang.
>> 
>> To be plausible, Britainese will be a SAE language. Maybe
>> that is why progress is slow.  It is not exactly the
>> greatest motivation    :)
> 
> Sure.  One must also distinguish between the *process* and the *end 
> product*.  Once done, Britainese will probably look like "yet another 
> Romance language" that doesn't do many "interesting" things.  But the 
> process by which you approach it is very thoughtful and worth watching.
> 
>> I cannot argue with what you say about Germanech itself.
>> Certainly simply grafting the sound changes of one language
>> onto another different language is artificial and to a
>> lesser or greater degree must be a botched job.
> 
> Actually, there are a few things about Germanech I like, and I don't 
> consider it an entirely botched job.  Yet, I am not really satisfied 
> with what came out of it, and feel little desire to carry on with it.  
> At least, it was a good practical exercise, though of "beginner level" 
> perhaps, in diachronic conlanging, and I learned some things from it 
> which I could apply to later, more mature projects.
> 
>> I am not sure I go along with "... there simply is no way to
>> do [Romlangs] well."  Sure, the production of Romlangs _far_
>> exceeds demand and many are IMO poorly done.  But
>> that does not per_se mean someone cannot do the thing well.
> 
> Point taken.  As I have said above, I did not foresee the way you would 
> take the challenge of a British Romance language when I wrote my article.
> 
>> The section "The more interesting, the less plausible" is
>> IMO largely true.  A Roman merchant ship blown off course
>> onto the shores of the American continent where a Romlang
>> then took root may be fun, but one should not pretend it's
>> plausible.  IMO some spoil the fun element of "weird
>> Romlangs" by trying to maintain the thing is plausible.
> 
> Fine.  Strange things happen in the real world, for sure; yet, most 
> romlangs I have seen either do not do anything remarkable, are based on 
> questionable methodology (usually, bogolangs), or require an unlikely 
> chain of events to unfold.  Bretainese is likely to fall into the first 
> category, but it is the process that is interesting here, while in my 
> article, I looked at end products.
> 
>> Maybe by aiming at plausibility with Britainese, I'm missing
>> out on the fun.  That is possibly true.
>> 
>> So if Romlangs are not among the "many interesting and
>> edifying things a conlanger can do", why carry on with
>> Britainese?  A fair question. The only answer I can give
>> is that on the introductory page to Britainese:
>> "The project is to create an altlang, i.e. a language of an
>> alternate history. It is the result of discussion that took
>> place on the "On Creating Altlangs" thread on the Conlang
>> list in February 2013, and of private exchange of emails
>> following that thread, I was persuaded to begin this project."
>> http://www.carolandray.plus.com/BART/index.html
>> 
>> Having begun it, I feel obliged to finish even tho 'twill
>> inevitably be a SAE.
> 
> Sure!  Carry on!  It would be a pity if your considerations were to lead 
> to nothing.
> 
> --
> ... brought to you by the Weeping Elf
> http://www.joerg-rhiemeier.de/Conlang/index.html
> "Bêsel asa Éam, a Éam atha cvanthal a cvanth atha Éamal." - SiM 1:1
> 
> ------------------------------
> 
> Date:    Tue, 2 Jun 2015 12:10:02 -0400
> From:    Chuck Haberl <[log in to unmask]>
> Subject: Theory: Molenaar's Unial (1903)
> 
> Dear Fellow Conlangers,
> 
> A few years back, I purchased a collection of interlinguistic paraphernalia dating back as far as the middle of the 19th century. There were many curiosities in this collection, some of which have since been published online (such as Moses Paić's Pasigraphie, https://books.google.com/books?id=YfkHAAAAIAAJ ), but a few rarities that are otherwise unavailable either in print or digital form.
> 
> One such rarity is a sketch grammar of Heinrich Molenaar's proposed international auxiliary language Unial (formerly "Universal," and "Pan-Roman" before that). At first glance, it's just another Neo-Latin auxlang like Peano's Interlingua/Latino sine flexione, which was published in the same year, but slightly more schematic and more eclectic in its sources. Bits and pieces of it have surfaced online over the years (including the ubiquitous Lord's Prayer), so you may already have a sense of its look.
> 
> My interest was piqued, so I did a bit of research, and found an extensive back story to Molenaar's language. In many respects, it's a prototype of de Wahl's Occidental, which was released two decades later. Molenaar was also as deeply involved in the auxlang movement politics of the fin de siècle as Peano, but his contribution has been eclipsed by the work of de Wahl (who did not acknowledge the influence of Molenaar's auxlang on his own, if indeed there were any influence), and the IALA (which acknowledged Peano and his Interlingua among its chief influences).
> 
> As a personal project in self-publication, I expanded his grammar with a new introduction (more than doubling it in size), formatted it as an eBook, and uploaded it to the Amazon Marketplace. It's available there at the minimum price of $0.99:
> 
> http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/B00YOBMBMQ
> 
> If you are concerned about giving Amazon your money or your personal information, or can't read anything in Kindle format, I'll soon post it at my Academia.edu profile:
> 
> https://rutgers-nj.academia.edu/ChuckHaberl
> 
> The Amazon contract I signed states that I can't make it available digitally anywhere else for three months, but after that point it will go up in PDF format.
> 
> Since it's not even remotely related to my professional research area, I'm not bothering to go through the double-blind peer review process with an established scholarly press, but I'm not going to lose any sleep about the $0.99 price tag, since I did put a lot of effort into typing it out and writing up the introduction.
> 
> all the best,
> Chuck
> 
> ------------------------------
> 
> Date:    Tue, 2 Jun 2015 19:57:27 -0400
> From:    "Mark J. Reed" <[log in to unmask]>
> Subject: To your listserv, welcome!
> 
> I here am new.
> 
> And yet old. Many of you will remember me from ... holy crap it's been a
> decade... ago.
> 
> I left because I stopped conlanging.  Nor have I started back up,  So
> what's changed?  Well, I'm still interested in the world of conlangs, and I
> decided that given the sheer volume of other stuff I peruse daily, I figure
> I can stand to turn this particular spigot back on.
> 
> The proximate cause for the timing of my return was an odd request to
> proofread a friend-of-a-friend's Elvish embroidery pattern.  Researching
> Quenya and Tengwar rekindled a bit of the old conlang fire, I suppose.
> 
> So what's happened in the past ten years?  :)
> 
> -- 
> Mark J. Reed <[log in to unmask]>
> 
> ------------------------------
> 
> Date:    Tue, 2 Jun 2015 21:00:14 -0400
> From:    Galen Buttitta <[log in to unmask]>
> Subject: Re: To your listserv, welcome!
> 
> Dothraki happened. Peterson's got a book coming out about conlanging.
> 
>> On Jun 2, 2015, at 19:57, Mark J. Reed <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
>> 
>> I here am new.
>> 
>> And yet old. Many of you will remember me from ... holy crap it's been a
>> decade... ago.
>> 
>> I left because I stopped conlanging.  Nor have I started back up,  So
>> what's changed?  Well, I'm still interested in the world of conlangs, and I
>> decided that given the sheer volume of other stuff I peruse daily, I figure
>> I can stand to turn this particular spigot back on.
>> 
>> The proximate cause for the timing of my return was an odd request to
>> proofread a friend-of-a-friend's Elvish embroidery pattern.  Researching
>> Quenya and Tengwar rekindled a bit of the old conlang fire, I suppose.
>> 
>> So what's happened in the past ten years?  :)
>> 
>> -- 
>> Mark J. Reed <[log in to unmask]>
> 
> ------------------------------
> 
> Date:    Tue, 2 Jun 2015 22:46:49 -0400
> From:    Herman Miller <[log in to unmask]>
> Subject: Re: To your listserv, welcome!
> 
> Mark J. Reed wrote:
>> I here am new.
>> 
>> And yet old. Many of you will remember me from ... holy crap it's been a
>> decade... ago.
>> 
>> I left because I stopped conlanging.  Nor have I started back up,  So
>> what's changed?  Well, I'm still interested in the world of conlangs, and I
>> decided that given the sheer volume of other stuff I peruse daily, I figure
>> I can stand to turn this particular spigot back on.
>> 
>> The proximate cause for the timing of my return was an odd request to
>> proofread a friend-of-a-friend's Elvish embroidery pattern.  Researching
>> Quenya and Tengwar rekindled a bit of the old conlang fire, I suppose.
>> 
>> So what's happened in the past ten years?  :)
> 
> After spending around four years on Minza without much to show for it, I 
> went back to Tirëlat and also decided to revive Jarda. Recently I 
> discovered Vocaloid and the delights of song translation. Tirëlat 
> revealed an unexpectedly lyrical side, and even Jarda has had its poetic 
> moments. I even wrote an original song in Tirëlat.
> 
> https://soundcloud.com/morphosyntax-1/xojda-rugi-u-room
> 
> One of these days I'd like to try reviving Lindiga. It needs quite a bit 
> of work though before it's ready.
> 
> ------------------------------
> 
> Date:    Tue, 2 Jun 2015 20:49:20 -0600
> From:    Dirk Elzinga <[log in to unmask]>
> Subject: Re: To your listserv, welcome!
> 
> Welcome back, Mark!
> 
> Dirk
> 
>> On Tue, Jun 2, 2015 at 5:57 PM, Mark J. Reed <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
>> 
>> I here am new.
>> 
>> And yet old. Many of you will remember me from ... holy crap it's been a
>> decade... ago.
>> 
>> I left because I stopped conlanging.  Nor have I started back up,  So
>> what's changed?  Well, I'm still interested in the world of conlangs, and I
>> decided that given the sheer volume of other stuff I peruse daily, I figure
>> I can stand to turn this particular spigot back on.
>> 
>> The proximate cause for the timing of my return was an odd request to
>> proofread a friend-of-a-friend's Elvish embroidery pattern.  Researching
>> Quenya and Tengwar rekindled a bit of the old conlang fire, I suppose.
>> 
>> So what's happened in the past ten years?  :)
>> 
>> --
>> Mark J. Reed <[log in to unmask]>
> 
> ------------------------------
> 
> Date:    Tue, 2 Jun 2015 23:22:49 -0400
> From:    "Mark J. Reed" <[log in to unmask]>
> Subject: Re: To your listserv, welcome!
> 
> That much I knew.  :)
> 
> On Tue, Jun 2, 2015 at 9:00 PM, Galen Buttitta <
> [log in to unmask]> wrote:
> 
>> Dothraki happened. Peterson's got a book coming out about conlanging.
>> 
>>> On Jun 2, 2015, at 19:57, Mark J. Reed <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
>>> 
>>> I here am new.
>>> 
>>> And yet old. Many of you will remember me from ... holy crap it's been a
>>> decade... ago.
>>> 
>>> I left because I stopped conlanging.  Nor have I started back up,  So
>>> what's changed?  Well, I'm still interested in the world of conlangs,
>> and I
>>> decided that given the sheer volume of other stuff I peruse daily, I
>> figure
>>> I can stand to turn this particular spigot back on.
>>> 
>>> The proximate cause for the timing of my return was an odd request to
>>> proofread a friend-of-a-friend's Elvish embroidery pattern.  Researching
>>> Quenya and Tengwar rekindled a bit of the old conlang fire, I suppose.
>>> 
>>> So what's happened in the past ten years?  :)
>>> 
>>> --
>>> Mark J. Reed <[log in to unmask]>
> 
> 
> 
> -- 
> Mark J. Reed <[log in to unmask]>
> 
> ------------------------------
> 
> Date:    Tue, 2 Jun 2015 23:22:59 -0400
> From:    "Mark J. Reed" <[log in to unmask]>
> Subject: Re: To your listserv, welcome!
> 
> Thanks, Dirk!
> 
> 
> On Tue, Jun 2, 2015 at 10:49 PM, Dirk Elzinga <[log in to unmask]>
> wrote:
> 
>> Welcome back, Mark!
>> 
>> Dirk
>> 
>>> On Tue, Jun 2, 2015 at 5:57 PM, Mark J. Reed <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
>>> 
>>> I here am new.
>>> 
>>> And yet old. Many of you will remember me from ... holy crap it's been a
>>> decade... ago.
>>> 
>>> I left because I stopped conlanging.  Nor have I started back up,  So
>>> what's changed?  Well, I'm still interested in the world of conlangs,
>> and I
>>> decided that given the sheer volume of other stuff I peruse daily, I
>> figure
>>> I can stand to turn this particular spigot back on.
>>> 
>>> The proximate cause for the timing of my return was an odd request to
>>> proofread a friend-of-a-friend's Elvish embroidery pattern.  Researching
>>> Quenya and Tengwar rekindled a bit of the old conlang fire, I suppose.
>>> 
>>> So what's happened in the past ten years?  :)
>>> 
>>> --
>>> Mark J. Reed <[log in to unmask]>
> 
> 
> 
> -- 
> Mark J. Reed <[log in to unmask]>
> 
> ------------------------------
> 
> End of CONLANG Digest - 1 Jun 2015 to 2 Jun 2015 (#2015-144)
> ************************************************************