Print

Print


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.