Re: Chelume - My Conlang website up.
From: | Ray Brown <ray.brown@...> |
Date: | Friday, January 9, 2004, 6:31 |
On Thursday, January 8, 2004, at 07:32 PM, Mark J. Reed wrote:
> CH> Darn non-IE browsers.
>
> I'd say, rather, darn the website designers who assume everyone uses IE.
> Bah.
AMEN!
=========================================================================
On Thursday, January 8, 2004, at 09:48 AM, Jan van Steenbergen wrote:
[snip]
> One thing: why would you give away at the end of the page that it is a
> work of
> fiction? Wouldn't it be much more fun to make people actually believe
> that it
> is all true? That's at least what I would do (and actually did; my page
> about
> Hattic has evoked some discussions about the question whether it is true
> or
> not).
Ah, but you have the added advantage that there are already two actual
unrelated
_natlangs_ called Hattic as well! So that must surely evoke discussion
not only
about whether it's true or not, but about whether it's the Siberian Hattic
or the
ancient Anatolian Hattic - much more fun, as you say, especially for
unwary
Google searchers :-)
=========================================================================
On Thursday, January 8, 2004, at 04:31 PM, Mark J. Reed wrote:
> On Thu, Jan 08, 2004 at 08:04:34AM -0800, Gary Shannon wrote:
>> Intersting thought. Has anyone ever tried to pass off
>> a conlang as "the real and true language of ancient
>> Atlantis?"
>
> You mean, other than Marc Okrand's Atlantean (created for
> the wretched Disney movie)? :)
Nah - everyone knows that Atlantean is the language of the Phaistos
Disk - or so I've been told ;)
Now, I guess, I'd better be off and actually look at the Chelume
web-site - hoping that I can read it with Mozilla :)
Ray.
===============================================
http://home.freeuk.com/ray.brown
ray.brown@freeuk.com (home)
raymond.brown@kingston-college.ac.uk (work)
===============================================
"A mind which thinks at its own expense will always
interfere with language." J.G. Hamann, 1760
Reply