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
"moron."
-----Original Message-----
From: Christophe Grandsire
[mailto:Christophe.Grandsire@LEON.BDE.ESPCI.FR]
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
http://www.ccil.org/~cowan cowan@ccil.org
> 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)
>
>