On Thu, 12 Nov 1998 16:56:47 -0700, David Bush <[log in to unmask]> wrote: >Here is another aspect that might explain why some conlangs have >natreligions. Religion is one thing we have great faith in. We accept >it as the truth. Since it is the truth, we equate it to normal things, >like "hammer" or "dictionary." Thus, we miss that it might not be the >truth to the conculture of your conlang. That is what makes conlanging >difficult: you can't take anything for granted. Of course, the conculture doesn't necessarily have hammers or = dictionaries, either. Some of my languages are designed for pre-literate cultures (who wouldn't have dictionaries because they don't have writing). It's a = little harder to imagine what a culture without hammers would be like, though.