Re: Has anyone made a real conlang?

* Andrew Nowicki said on 2003-04-21 23:35:54 +0200
> It seems to me that most of the languages discussed
> in this mailing list are not languages at all, but
> names of languages that exist only in the imagination
> of the person who invented the names. I doubt a
> language can be used for simple everyday communication
> unless it has a vocabulary of at least 1000 words.
> Has  anyone in this mailing list made a real conlang?
Congratulations! You're well on your way to start a flame-fest.
Is this your first, or are you just practicing before your
advance on usenet?

Now GO AWAY TROLL!

Notes to onlookers:

1: If you are looking for a discussion or definition of what a
   word is, you don't start out with pissing off the ppl that
   came up with the word in the first place.

2: Beware of the word 'real', as in "real conlang", "real man",
   "if you really love me"
   Other words in this category are, among others, 'proper' and
   'decent'.

3: Another dangerous word: 'imaginary', when not in the context
   of 'imaginary numbers' (oxymoron?)

Send improvements to this list of danger-signs to me directly and
I'll sum it up if you so desire.

This message, and eventual on-list replies, are/would be off-topic btw.


HTH, HAND,
t.