Re: Back to Conlang

The Gray Wizard wrote:

> Welcome back, Tommaso!  We've missed you.
Thanks a lot, David!  I've been missing my "Conlang days," and I
surely missed a lot of interesting languages and discussion.

>> * Streich (grammar nearly finalized, although my docs are all
>> messy because of overlapping revisions, most of them undone when
>> I realized I was adding features I didn't really want just to
>> increase the language complexity;  some 2,000 lexical entries;
>> a few very old translations, not in line with current grammar)
>
> This was always one of my favorites.  You've got to get it back up
> on the web.
Some good news and some bad news for you, then.  I've just found a
new home for my web site and I've already started editing my pages,
but I'll start with Anawanda, whose docs just need some minor
polishing, and only then proceed to Streich...

But I could find the time to post a brief sketch of Streich here,
if there's enough interest.

> Sigh!  I can't help but envy you prolific conlangers who are
> able to create so many languages.  I've got only one that I think
> qualifies as more than a sketch and have been struggling to get
> on other off the ground.
Personally, I value quality much more than rough number of
languages.  With this perspective, it's me who envies those of
you who actually manage to achieve, or at least approximate,
"completeness" (a somewhat obscure quality, this one:  to me, a
complete conlang is one that is as powerful as a natlang).  And
I think that amman-iar, for example, not only "qualifies as more
than a sketch," but is indeed at least very close to what I call
completeness.

Thanks again,

Tommaso.