Re: Current documentation outline

> ? The _wording_ didn't sound sarcastic, but the raw semantic meaning
> ? did. Why else would someone claim an intention to study my outline
> ? and use it as a model - a claim that makes no sense at all taken
> ? literally?
>
> How does it not make sense? I thought the same thing, but then
> realized that I can't do it that completely. Also, I have difficulty
> relating Valdyan to English because that would probably ?pull it
> over? in a direction that I don't want. I have the same reason not to
> translate passages from the Bible: to avoid cultural contamination.
Documentation is dependent on content. If a language has some unusual or
complex feature in its grammar, the documentation must work around this.
For example the feature must be explained before its various applications
are encountered (e.g. in Gzarondan, the need to explain the application
of byverbial adjectives in passive sentences affects the order in which
things are explained), and a complicated topic (e.g. articles in
Gzarondan) must be broken into more subheadings than a simple one.

Because each conlang has its own needs, it doesn't make sense to model
the documentation on someone else's. And when that someone else is as
much an amateur as it's possible to be, I have to wonder what is really
behind the apparent flattery.

P.S. One o' these days I'm gonna pinch a whole bunch of words from
Valdyan, for my vocab.

--
web.       | Here and there I like to preserve a few islands of sanity
netyp.com/ | within the vast sea of absurdity which is my mind.
member/    | After all, you can't survive as an eight foot tall
dragon     | flesh eating dragon if you've got no concept of reality.