Re: A Bit of a Flame

Trent Pehrson wrote:

> Be warned: this is a bit of a flame.
You should have put the [RANT] flag in subject line. Just my 2 cents...  ;-)

> You Chomsky-loving, structure-worshiping linguists are so brainwashed.
	[---CUT---]

I would rather say "unimaginative"... to nobody in particular.

I won't comment every sentence but there is one point about which I totally
agree with you: The so-called "universals" are here just to be violated.
When somebody creates a language, they has no rule to respect but to ask
themself if it fits in their conlang, if it sounds good to their ears.

Newcomers and "oldcomers" shouldn't come here and ask "Am I entitled to do
this or that?".

Why should we limit our imagination?

	[---CUT---]
> The whole universe does not have to be variations of noun-and-verb-based
> SVO  "grammatical"sentences.
çi-voo kür, be gosay kja.
[Ci:vo^o kyx], [be: gosaH kja]

RESUMPTIVE:this DESCRIPTOR, QUALIFICATIVE agreement (atemporal):1sg

**From this, I (always) acquire the quality agreeing.
= I always agree with this.

When I read "my conlang is SOV/OVS/VOS/etc", I just start getting bored.
That's the main reason why my conlang, Shaquelingua, is verb-less,
object-less --No direct or indirect object.-- and as a pro-drop language, it
can also be subject-less. That's much more fun!  ;-)

karu çuluta, jë daëtla tul, pre tsabë tseos'kairø ?
[kaxu: Cu4uta], [jE: da^E.t4a tu4], [pxe: tsabE tse^os(o)'ka^ix9]

our:REFERENTIAL imagination, one limit DESCRIPTOR, which reason
OBLIGATIVE:ATEMPORAL:IMAGINARY'we-all

**Which reason should we give to one limit(-ation) of our imagination?

I'm having a hard time finding the right way to explain Shaquelingua's
grammar but I'm pretty sure that it will be very unique... and alien.  ;-)

kara zato'tul xij, [kaxa: zato:'tu4 Zij] (**my again:future'expressed self)

--
==================
Remi Villatel
maxilys_@_tele2.fr
==================

Reply