Rob Nierse wrote:

> About justifying your conlang: this is my standard answer:
> "I can't justify."

How do you justify that for which the very idea of "justification"
makes no sense?  Does it makes sense to "justify" the Mona Lisa,
or the Sistine Chapel? After the fact, maybe (in this line of thinking:
because they make money for the Louvre/Vatican) -- but not
when the artists involved were first thinking about the idea.

The very idea of justification of anything is really quite
absurd, when you get right down to it.  There is no provable
objective existence in the world (though sometimes we can
create systems which approach it) --  so does it make sense
to talk of "justification" of anything at all?

(Sorry if I seem to be getting emotional about what might
sound like a trivial subject -- I've run into some people who
might as well be followers of Ayn Rand recently, and they
aren't very easy to discuss things with because they're all
too often so dogmatic and dead set on their own subjective
view of the world)

Tom Wier <[log in to unmask]>
ICQ#: 4315704   AIM: Deuterotom
Website: <>
"Cogito ergo sum, sed credo ergo ero."

Non cuicumque datum est habere nasum.
It is not given to just anyone to have a nose.
        -- Martial