Re: UVW (was: Lingo)

On Thu, 2002-07-11 at 07:10, Christophe Grandsire wrote:
> En réponse à Tristan McLeay <kesuari@...>:
>
> >
> > Maggelity /m@gE:lIti/ (noun) The state of being entirely
> > unpredictable.
> > [from _Maggel_ a constructed language by Christophe Grandsire, which
> > had
> > an unpredictable orthography +_ity_]
> >
>
> *has*! I intend my language to live very long!!! :)))
Yes. errm... Same thing...

> > Etabnannery /r@mn{n@ri/ (noun) The state of appearing entirely
> > unpredictable, but, upon closer analysis, failing at even being that.
> > [from _Etábnanni_ a constructed language by Tristan McLeay, which was
> > *supposed* to have an unpredictable orthography, but ended up just
> > having a confusing one. Damn people trying to make patterns
> > everywhere.
> > At least it's a bugger to typeset!... err... back to the derivation
> > +_ery_]
> >
>
> LOL If ever dictionary definitions become like that, I want to buy a few more
> dictionaries ;))) .
Heh ;) Someone's going to have to make me the editor of the Oxford
Dictionary ;)

> > There we go, now we just have to convince people to use them enough.
> > Do
> > you think they'd be included in a dictionary if even just some
> > conlangers used them often enough? Or would they decide just that our
> > words were merely slang and not worth of dictionarifying?
> >
>
> Well, you do have dictionaries of slang, so why not a dictionary of conlanging
> slang?! :)) . Who thinks it's a good idea of article for the Conlang
> Journal? :)))
True, true. But not quite the same as it being included in *real*
dictionaries. But yes, go ahead. I had the very same idea.

> >
> > I like your language too. (You get the idea it's not that hard for me
> > to
> > like a language, do you? Maybe I have to put in better standards.)
> >
>
> Well, a non-standard orthography is already a nice criterion don't you
> think? :))
Well... obviously!

> (not that I don't like languages with standard orthographies. It
> usually means they also have an own script, which I like even more!!! :))
> That's why Maggel also has its own alphabet :))) - luckily with a one-to-one
> correspondence with a subset of the Latin alphabet, since it's derived from
> it :)) -).
Etábnanni has its own alphabet. Two of them, actually. And a number of
ideograms borrowed and changed a bit from a nearby people. And writes
borrowings in the native script when the native script is right-to-left
or, if it's vertical, looks okay when rotated 90 degrees.

> >
> > No, never! Bizarre spellings must survive for all time! Aeternity,
> > even!
> > (No, no-one spells it 'aeternity'. But (a) it's a bizarre spelling and
> > (b) it looks even longer than merely 'eternity', at least to me, so I
> > use it.)
> >
>
> I like that spelling :)) . In fact, I like very much the spelling |ae|. It
> appears quite often in Maggel :)) (|ea| too, which often marks the diphtongue
> [&a] :))) ).
Looks like the Old English <ea>. (And it's 'diphthong', from 'phthong'.)

--------------

On Thu, 2002-07-11 at 07:03, Christophe Grandsire wrote:

> No!!! No!!! No!!! If French can live without a spelling reform
(although it had
> some but only about details that most people don't agree on anyway
;))) ), so
> can Ibran!!!!
Bah, didn't you change the spelling of _connoisseur_ to _connaisseur_ or
something, making life difficult for us English people (who'd already
borrowed it)?

> If you want to make a spelling reform, make it so that Ibran becomes
*more*
> strange even :)) . Add some irregularities for instance!! :)))
Somehow, I doubt anyone would do that ;)

Tristan.

Reply