Re: Vocabulary Creation

Christopher Wright writes:
 > Andrew Nowicki said:
 > >If you want to use roots like Lego blocks,
 > >you can use my roots.
 >
 > You don't understand at all! You're absolutely stupid if you can't
 > realize that everyone here wants to be original! Nobody wants your
 > ugly root words or to hear why your stupid IAL should be spoken by
 > everyone.  Kua Sai wants to make a vocabulary, not to borrow yours
 > wholesale.
 >
I think that's a little strong.  Kua Sai *asked* if there was a list
of roots online, and while I don't think the Ygyde roots are
necessarily very good ones, they do constitute a "list of basic roots"
and as such a valid answer to the request.

[...]
 >
 > You seem to think that your ugly language is the best that could
 > possibly be made. You sicken me! You have absolutely no
 > intelligence as far as I can see, and I will breathe a sigh of
 > relief at your leaving.
 >
 > We have vastly different objectives. You care nothing for beautiful
 > words or a pleasant-sounding phonology. We value both very
 > highly. On the other hand, most of us do not care if any of our
 > languages are even possible to learn, whereas you have that as a
 > main objective and fail miserably!
 >
Well now, most of us do care more about aesthetics than ease of
learning, but that's not a requirement for prescence on this list.
This is a perfectly suitable forum for discussing utilitarian aspects
of language design as long as it's restricted to arguments as to why
some some feature represents some specific benefit, and doesn't become
language advocacy.  Mr Nowicki hasn't followed this rule perfectly,
perhaps, but there've been many worse in the past, and he does at
least seem to be capable of carrying on a civil discourse.

I'm sure you have your reasons for being angry, but your response here
seems disproportionate.  Calm down, it's not that important.

Reply