|From:||Mike Adams <abrigon@...>|
|Date:||Thursday, September 7, 2000, 5:37|
Hum, I know of atleast two Auxlangs that have diverged from each other,
mostly over technical and control reasons, but not for exactly cultural
as the Romans did.
The idea of Roman civilization did not die, but the need for Roman
Citizenship did for reasons of power.. I know we still use the idea of
the Glory of Rome even today, after all we still have stories of Arthur
and others who symbolized Rome or atleast some ideals of it. But alot
have that had to do with the Roman church and its need to maintain
power/continuality in the west, and the Eastern Empire for much the same
reason, and the people did need some real need, versus some mythical
one, the mythical did help. But in the end, the Empire died in the west
cause of lack of real need to be a Roman Citizen, and it died under its
own weight and lack of real reasons to continue, the economic center had
moved East. Did a Emperor of the late empire need to be a roman citizen,
when all he needed was to be acclaimed by the Army (or some major
segment of it). Yes, some maintained the illusion, but were they really
Back to Conlangs, actually concultures, how to give a conculture for a
conlang (for literature reasons, not for Auxlang for the modern world)
some history. I know some here do it..
The topic of words used by each generation brings up that point, how to
give a lingo a history, to show its shifting in words and meanings..
What was okay today, maybe not right in 20 years.. Slang and like
Do You Yahoo!?
Get your free @yahoo.com address at http://mail.yahoo.com