David Peterson scripsit:
# [Myths]
Conlangers are geeks (old meaning - those who bite chicken heads)
Conlangers are geeks (current meaning)
> 2.) Does anyone have any information on or any links to information on the
> history of language creation--specifically, information on NON-Auxlangs from
> way in the past? I found a bunch of information on Auxlangs, but very
> little on non, aside from the Voynich manuscript. Is there anything out
> there?
Google for "Lingua Ignota".
> 3.) Concerning non-Auxlangs, again, what's of note? There's Marc Okrand,
> Tolkien, maybe the Blade movies can get a mention, maybe Magma, the new Star
> Trek, or Star Trek in general, but what else?
Loglan/Lojban are not auxlangs (although they can and have been used as such)
and have considerable publicity outside the conlang community, plus a live
community of speakers/readers/writers.
http://www.lojban.org
http://www.loglan.org
> Are there any a priori conlangs created just for fun that
> have gotten any attention whatsoever aside from the ones mentioned?
Probably not.
> That's pretty much it; anything else I've got a handle on.
Say something about conculturing.
--
John Cowan http://www.ccil.org/~cowan <jcowan@...>
"Any legal document draws most of its meaning from context. A telegram
that says 'SELL HUNDRED THOUSAND SHARES IBM SHORT' (only 190 bits in
5-bit Baudot code plus appropriate headers) is as good a legal document
as any, even sans digital signature." --me