Theiling Online    Sitemap    Conlang Mailing List HQ   

Re: CHAT: closet conlanging >> definitions?

From:Gressett, David <david.gressett@...>
Date:Monday, January 18, 1999, 21:48
I owe some of you an apology for asking you to take this off-line. I just
subscribed to a few other mailing lists, and I've found this one is the best
moderated, considerate, and topical of any of the active ones I could find.
This list is almost a safe haven for me now. There is something almost
orgasmic about slamming morons in a flame war, but I still prefer the
peaceful pastures of conlang.

Having said this now, I will even add something to this thread. I am very
open about my conlang bug. At first this provoked the type of "you are nuts"
negativity we are all familiar with. It took quite a few years of open
discussion before I learned my way of explaining it to people.

Me: "I spend most of my spare time developing an artificial language."
Them: "Why?!"
Me: "Why do people buy books of logic puzzles? Why do people read Discover
magazine? Why do people watch series television when the ending can almost
always be predicted? Linguistics is a very rich and complex field of study,
which makes it interesting."
Them: "But nobody will ever speak an artificial language!"
Me:"And Bob, nobody will ever sail your ship in a bottle, either."

That usually settles it, and upgrades me to the rank of "weirdo" instead of

-----Original Message-----
From: Christophe Grandsire
Sent: Thursday, January 14, 1999 1:26 AM
To: Multiple recipients of list CONLANG
Subject: Re: CHAT: Re: closet conlanging >> definitions?

At 09:59 13/01/99 -0500, you wrote:
>Douglas Koller wrote: > >> Section 34. Whoever commits the abominable and detestable crime against >> nature [...] >> Section 35. Whoever commits any unnatural and lascivious act [...] > >I hasten to assure any Massachusettensians who may be concerned >that these statutes are mere flatus vocis, being unconstitutional >on their face (for vagueness). >
It wouldn't be the first time that an unconstitutional law (for vagueness) would be used against a minority.
>-- >John Cowan > You tollerday donsk? N. You tolkatiff scowegian? Nn. > You spigotty anglease? Nnn. You phonio saxo? Nnnn. > Clear all so! 'Tis a Jute.... (Finnegans Wake 16.5) > >
Christophe Grandsire |Sela Jemufan Atlinan C.G. "Reality is just another point of view." homepage :