Re: Has anyone made a real conlang?

En réponse à Andrew Nowicki :
>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?
Well, I was wondering how long it would take to Andrew to show again his
arrogance and his complete disrespect towards us ;))) . I guess it didn't
take that long...

But as for Conlangs that are big enough for everyday communication:
Teonaht, Kerno, Brithenig, Denden, Ilaini, Tokana, Tepa (sorry, but I can't
spell the new name :(( ), Keleñ, my own Moten, have all enough vocabulary
for everyday communication (although my Moten lacks some things, it is so
also because of its concultural background). And that's only a small sample
of such "real" conlangs.

Also, not all conlangs worth mentioning are fully presented on the web. And
your accusation about Langmaker is so stupid that I cannot even take it
seriously! If anything, the figures in Langmaker are *more* correct than
anything else that you can come up with, since they include everything the
author made, including what they write on paper. And most of us prefer
using paper and pen, or don't put our entire dictionaries on Internet just
because in your strange vision of the world anything that you cannot check
doesn't exist.

The rest is not worth a reply, but I think you need to apologize for your
incorrect comments that you tried to put on us as universal truth. Like we
say in French: "Tourne 7 fois ta langue dans ta bouche avant de parler". In
other words: check your facts before saying anything. Last time you were on
this list, it was your problem too. We'd think you had learned your lesson...

Christophe Grandsire.

http://rainbow.conlang.free.fr

You need a straight mind to invent a twisted conlang.

Reply