Re: a 12th century conlang

dunn patrick w wrote:
> but he *still* thinks it's not a real language.
It occurs to me that this is a remarkably ambiguous statement.  "Real",
at least to me, can also mean "genuine, natural".  By that sense,
Klingon, and other conlangs, are not "real", but they have all the same
(well, most of the same) characteristics of real languages, thus, they
are actual languages ("real" languages by another definition of real!),
but they're artificial, they're "fake", and usually quite personal as
well.  Every one of us puts part of our own personality into our
conlangs.  The few group conlangs diffuse that a bit, and take parts of
multiple personalities, but, just as natural languages reflect the
culture of the speakers, our conlangs inevitably have at least some
influence from our own "cultures of one", our personalities.  Some of us
try harder than others to not let our personalities influence our
conlangs, but they inevitably have some influence.

--
"It's bad manners to talk about ropes in the house of a man whose father
was hanged." - Irish proverb
http://members.tripod.com/~Nik_Taylor/W.html
http://members.tripod.com/~Nik_Taylor/Books.html
ICQ: 18656696
AIM Screen-name: NikTailor