Hi!
R A Brown <ray@...> writes:
>...
>> Some things got mixed up here .
>
> It would seem so to me also.
:-)
>...
> I agree that the GMP is a helpful means to prevent chaos in the
> diachronic development of a naturalistic conlang. But I do not see why
> _simplicity_ per_se has to be fauxlangish. Surely pidgins and creoles
> have similar simplicity.
Ok, this seems to be the core of the confusion: that I call it a
fauxlang giving rise to false expectations. I did not notice this
problem before, so thanks for the fine analysis!
>...
>> And even if I don't seem to succeed in explaining how the
>> design goals fit together, they make perfect sense to me.
>
> My own personally feeling is that it would be better to drop the
> fauxlang idea and to seek the simplicity and isolating structure you
> desire by designing Terkunan as a Romance-based creole *there*.
Ok. I won't call it a fauxlang anymore.
But 'creole' would also give rise to expectations I currently don't
have, e.g., maybe more loans (if you want to call them loans in a
creole when the words where there from the start). I will call it a
personal language until I find something more specific that suits the
goals.
**Henrik