Re: Has anyone made a real conlang?

Thomas Leigh wrote:
TL> Sitting down and sending a few emails is one thing.
TL> But as far as languages go, many of us (myself included)
TL> work primarily on paper. Finding the time to sit down and
TL> type up entire notebooks' worth of grammatical rules and
TL> vocabulary is another thing entirely.

I went paperless some 20 years ago. I still use a printer to
print paper documents, but I never make any notes on paper.
I hate paper books -- they take up too much room and it is
difficult to find info when I need it. Paper faxes are
sometimes illegible -- emails are much better. Two years
ago I gave my film still camera to a cousin and bought
Nikon Coolix 990. Now I take pictures of documents and
copy them to my laptop. Adobe Photoshop can reduce one page
of black on white document to about 50 kB, so 20,000 pages
take up one gigabyte.

Are there any advantages of scribbling on paper?

============================================================

R Burke wrote:
RB> No, they [conlangs, AN] are useful. The mind of a conlanger
RB> is probably a scary place for most. Would you rather we
RB> conlangers fix your car? :) If you mean useful in an
RB> auxlang viewpoint, then maybe not. But telling conlangers
RB> that their creations aren't useful is like telling an
RB> artist his paintings are useless.

If someone tells me that he loves to sing or to paint, but does
not share his art with anyone, I am skeptical. Art is useful
when it is admired by a large number of people.

Unabridged Webster's dictionary defines language as "the words,
their pronunciation, and the method of combining them used and
understood by a considerable community and established by long usage".

Replies