To Thomas:

I agree that using an Esperantic system of regular derivation would not
have been a good idea.

How can you make major changes in the features of Sajem Tan, or any
conlang, without revising the lexicon or the corpus? You can’t.

However, I want to point out that revision and iteration is the key to
perfection in all art forms. How many times does a pianist need to play a
piece before it is played well? How many times does a poet need to revise a
poem before it is done? How many still lives does an artist need to paint
before the canvas comes alive?

Revision appears to be a fundamental necessity in all human creative
endeavors. Conlanging is no exception.

To Alex:

I agree that my list of possible morphemic elements to remove is based
partly on my exposure to auxlangs and shows a SAE bias. However, this
suggestion was not motivated to entice more interest in Sajem Tan, but
rather to encourage those people who found it interesting, to follow
through and learn it, by lowering the hurdles of linguistic unfamiliarity.
This is predicated on the near certainty that they would come from an SAE

But Alex’s comments here leads to a good question: What exactly is it about
a conlang that attracts a community of speakers? Is it its “punchy design
desiderata” that leads to a good “elevator pitch” (or to put it into
“fiction publishing jargon”, is it because the conlang is “high concept”?).
What is the sine qua non that a “successful” conlang must have?

Consider these four conlangs, all of which have garnered a community of
speakers:  Esperanto, Klingon, Lojban, Toki Pona.

I don’t see any commonality between them. Rather their successes seems more
related to a fortunate confluence of social and political factors existent
at the time when they were introduced. And they were attractive to far
different subpopulations. In fact, I would bet that Okrand and Lang were
surprised that their respective conlangs spread as extensively as they did.

At this point, I do not believe that there is some je ne sais quoi that
predictively will lead to adoption of a conlang by a community of speakers.
It is certainly not determinable by the list of linguistic features of the
conlang, or the simplicity of its phonology, or the regularity of its
grammar. Even some auxlangers have, reluctantly, conceded this point. As to
how this relates to Sajem Tan and how to proceed: Ultimately, the “tribe”
should decide what goal they wish to shoot for, and how best to achieve it.
But the goal of expansion of the community of speakers may prove to be

Finally (Alex’s last parenthetical comment), as for designing an auxlang
where affixing and isolating constructions are ambiguous and either can be
used: Been there, done that. No one cared.


On Sat, May 28, 2016 at 6:26 PM, Shanoxilt Cizypij <
[log in to unmask]> wrote:

> >Gabriel Brinton
> >Disclaimer: i don't know what's been talked about for -zhum, or even very
> much about the background of Common Honey. I only just read the thing
> >about it being the Piraha of the Web, so I'm just thinking in terms of
> what Internetians might do with -zhum if they were to use it productively.
> That's more or less how it works. If you want to join the fun, just ask.
> We'll send you an invitation.