Re: Sketch of Falwan

Christopher B Wright sikayal:

> I made this language sketch to be difficult. The vocabulary is based on
> Chinese and Arabic, while the phonology and morphology was based on
> nothing.
> The inventory is as follows:
> [snip horrific torture of innocent graphemes]
> The morphology is agglutinating and extremely flexible. Any inflection
> can go anywhere, and words are mashed together. The mashing is limited by
> sentence function, so there can be one word for the verb and its direct
> modifiers, and a preposition with its object and modifiers can be
> condensed into one word....
>
> What a monster I have created. Or at least sketched.
A monster indeed. What is the *orthography* based on, by God? What
possessed you to make {i} be [{]? That's just perverse. And {w} has four
values? I'm apalled. And it should go without saying that having [F]
without plain 'ol [m] breaks every phonetic and typological rule we have.
This is obviously a freaklang, and freaklangs have always turned me off.

The mushing, however, sounds very interesting. I'd like to see more on
that (since it's at least reasonably naturalistic).


Jesse S. Bangs jaspax@u.washington.edu

"If you look at a thing nine hundred and ninety-nine times, you are
perfectly safe; if you look at it the thousandth time, you are in
frightful danger of seeing it for the first time."
--G.K. Chesterton