Re: Back!

Adam Parrish wrote:
>
>        I'm curious as to how other conlangers have solved the problem
>of cosmic location, since it does seem to be rather vital to an
>important part of a language's vocabulary.  It seems to me that most of
>us have languages set in an Earth with a different social history
>(extreme: Tokana, where civilization never took place; less extreme:
>Brithenig, where history diverged hundreds of years ago; even less
>extreme: Elet Anta and Teonaht, which make no modification to history
>except to suggest the presence of secretive subcultures).  An almost
>equal proportion have chosen to locate their creations on distant
>planets (the Kolagian languages, many of Nik Taylor's creations, and =
the
>ubiquitous Star Trek languages).  I'm not satisfied with either of =
these
>options.  Have I missed anything?  Is there a middle ground?
Hmmm... if not an Earth with an alternative social setting, and if=20
not a distant planet, then what could be a middle ground? The=20
Boreanesian setting perhaps?

Boreanesia is set on Earth but with an alternative geological history=20
allowing for a piece of Gondwanaland to be placed just south of=20
Japan, east of the Philippines, and north of New Guinea. Human=20
history is almost exactly like ours with the single difference that=20
there exists an extra landmass that man manage to colonize about 40=20
thousand years ago.

The geological history of the Boreanesian landmass has some=20
interesting consequences for its endemic life. There are very few=20
flowering plants (most endemic plant-life being gymnospermous, like=20
ferns, cycads, and coniferous auracarias), and all endemic mammalian=20
life are monotremes (that is, egg-laying mammals) that have evolved=20
to fill certain ecological niches like the marsupials of Australia.

In a way, you could almost say that visiting Boreanesian is like=20
visiting another planet. But you'd still be on Earth. Hence, a middle=20
ground.

-kristian- 8)