Re: OT: no cross, no crown (was Re: [TECH] First day of the week)

On 9/17/07, Lars Finsen <lars.finsen@...> wrote:
> Den 17. sep. 2007 kl. 06.47 skrev Philip Newton:
>
> > While I can't speak for the policymaker(s), my impression would be
> > that this would be fine, as long as people leave out RL religion and
> > politics. (What the situation of conlang R/P that closely mirrors the
> > creator's R/P and that is presented in an in-your-face way would be, I
> > don't know.)
>
> Sorry, what is "RL"?
"real life" (as opposed to, say, conculture).

> "R/P" is Religion/Politics I suppose.
Yes, an ad hoc abbreviation.

> For my part I would love to see conlang religion/politics presented
> even if it closely mirrors the creator's. Pretty central to any
> conculture I'd say.
It depends on how it's presented, I suppose; if the example sentences
seem to push a specific doctrine, for example, it's likely to be more
controversial than simply listing, say, a bunch of related words along
the lines of "congregation; cleric; doctrine; etc.".

Cheers,
--
Philip Newton <philip.newton@...>

Reply