Re: THEORY: Conlanging as reverse Sapir-Whorf?

nicole perrin <nicole.eap@...> comunu:

> This makes me curious, do people on the list (who work on more than one
> conlang) find that most of their conlangs are similar to each other?  I
> don't mean in obvious ways, but maybe you really like /p/ and all of you
> languages have it (or you really dislike it and none of them have it),
> or maybe they all have similar word orders, or are all
> isolating/agglutinating/analytic/polysynthetic etc?
It was out of fear of this that I asked people to profile only one language
in the typology survey (which, BTW, I do have enough responses to to update,
and will do at some point).

In my own languages, I have always preferred simple, even minimal,
phonologies, and usually allow closed syllables and consonant clusters.  I
tend to prefer SVO, prepositions, initial genitives, modifiers before nouns.

But, as I think of my major languages -- Dublex, Sen:esepera, Roxhai, Fith,
Montinoro (not on the net), Illish -- not one uses the same method of
vocabulary generation, not one uses the same "lexical space";  three are
artistic IALs (an oxymoron to some), and the other three have concultures.

Best regards,

Jeffrey Henning
http://www.LangMaker.com/ - Invent Your Own Language
subscribe-dublexgame@onelist.com - Win $100 in the DublexGame contest!

"If Bill Gates had a nickel for every time Windows crashed....  Oh, wait, he
does!"