|From:||Jan van Steenbergen <ijzeren_jan@...>|
|Date:||Wednesday, June 18, 2003, 10:20|
--- James Worlton skrzypszy:
> This got me wondering about how we all approach the specific creation of
> words in conlangs, and how closely we try to relate them (or not!) to
> natlangs. Obviously, for languages like Wenedyk and others the similarities
> are conscious. But for others, like Orêlynna (my current conlang), I wonder
> how consciously we try to *avoid* any forms that resemble natlangs.
Well, in the case of a posteriori languages like Wenedyk, it is not only the
similarity that is fun; it is rather the interplay between similarity and
dissimilarity that makes it exciting (at least to me). I think this is the case
for most a posteriori languages - except the IALs. Wenedyk is perhaps not the
best example, because here it is rather similarity to two completely different
things that play a role here. But in my conlangs Hattic and Askaic, derived
straightly from Proto-Indo-European (through a common proto-language) it is
evident: something vaguely familiar, and yet completely different. That's what
I am trying to achieve, at least.
"Originality is the art of concealing your source." - Franklin P. Jones
Want to chat instantly with your online friends? Get the FREE Yahoo!