Re: milimpulaktasin

Christophe Grandsire wrote:
>
<snip>

>
> :) Many people already told me that my page was easy to read, even for people
> who have only a sketchy knowledge of French. As I wanted my style to be easy to
> understand in my webpage, I take it as a great compliment.
It is a compliment, I'd say. Just for fun I tried tried running one of
your pages through Babelfish, ("Goûts et dégoûts", I think) and I had a
hazy understanding of it in French (although the problem is on my end)
and it was *complete* gibberish in English. ;-) In general, I can
understand most of it, and if I can't I have a French-English dictionary
near my computer. It seems to be especially easy with conlangs, because
I can understand the basic vocabulary, and linguistic terms tend to be
the same or similar in both languages.

<snip>

>
> /G/ (in Sampa at least :) ). Those are basic transcriptions anyway. I think
> there must be quite a few conlangs out there with the same transcription system
> :) .
Ah, /G/. I wasn't sure if that was said fricative or something uvular,
so.. Yeah, it is a fairly common transcription, so it's nothing really
to worry about.

On another note, I've been toying with using the Cyrillic alphabet to
write Ajuk. It works, pretty well, but there's no plausible explanation
for why it came to into use. Ook.

<snip>

> > But over all, it's good that once we delved beneath the surface we found
> > some differences. Otherwise we would have had to fight to see who gets
> > to keep their language. ;-)
> >
>
> He he, the oldest conlang wins priority :) . Since Azak was created when the
> list didn't even exist yet... :)))) But well, there is enough place in the world
> even for look-alike conlangs :) .
But then you have an unfair advantage, because you're older than me. ;-)
It's a moot point, though, because our conlangs *aren't* the same.

I suppose there is enough room for look-alike conlangs. At the very
least we could use different orthographies to hide the similarities. :-)

--
Robert

Reply