Jan wrote:
> But listen, not all subgroups are silly or ridiculous. Especially
> Romanceconlang and Celticonlang are well-functioning groups > and valuable sources of
> information.
Yes. Poorly worded by me again. I didn't mean "yet another" in
the sense that all specialized groups were silly. I meant that perhaps we
shouldn't start ridiculously specialized groups like
FinnoLappiconlang, Huaveconlang or Chukotko-Kamtchatkaconlang.
(No offence intended to anyone working on an a posteriori Alutor
conlang ;).
I totally agree with you and Isaac et al that these groups fill their
purpose excellently.
Daniel Andreasson