Re: This is not a conlang.

Sally Caves wrote, quoting myself where indicated:

> I'll qualify that again.  If it doesn't have a translation, it would
> be difficult to determine that it was gibberish.  But try putting a
> translation to it.  Then you would run into difficulties.
I made a start on trying to extrapolate a grammatical structure in
another post. I'm sure it could be done, but not if a corresponding
translation were created a priori.

> > If you're ever in Adelaide we'll have to practice on each other. I'd
> > enjoy that :-)
>
> HA!  Adelaide it is, next stop!  Maybe we could get Richard K. to come down,
> too.  He likes to do this kind of thing, as I described.
The only conlangers I've met in person are Irina and Boudewijn, and
that was when I was in Europe in February 2000 (it was Irina who gave
me the address of the List). I spoke a bit of gibberish to Irina
whilst on the train to Utrecht.

> > Devil's advocate (even though that's rather an ironic phrase in
> > context):
>
> :)
>
> > an angelic language could very easily not express the
> > concept of God as a lexical item; the concept would more likely be
> > embedded in the grammar in less regular ways. :-)
>
> Right, that is, if you believe in an "angelic language" with an
> interpretable grammar, and words that have some kind of
> correspondence to things of the Real World.  It's very appealing to
Of course, I /was/ only playing Devil's Advocate, and entirely agree
with your scepticism on the matter.

BTW, since you weren't around at the time, I'm vaguely curious about
what you think of the significant events in the recent history of the
list, in particular the flag?

Adrian.

Replies