Re: LCC2: Meeting our Community
| From: | Rick Harrison <rick@...> |
|---|
| Date: | Tuesday, July 17, 2007, 6:47 |
|---|
On Tue, 17 Jul 2007 15:35:17 +1000, T. A. McLeay <conlang@...> wrote:
>You are allowed to discuss the beauty of a naturalistic Romance language
>on this list regardless of whether it's an auxlang or an artlang. What
>you are not allowed to do is say that Interlingua > Esperanto as an auxlang.
I'm aware of the rule. If my first message was unclear, I was agreeing that the
'Balkanaztion' of conlangers into different camps might be questionable, worthy of
reconsideration. During the language creation process there are more similarities than
differences, I think. After the design is done, that's when the behaviors and experiences
really diverge and become very different.
>> And another thing... why do we write engelang instead of engilang? If it's a
contraction of
>> "engineered" shouldn't it be engi- rather than enge-?
>
>AFAIK, it's because it's pronounced /endZl&N/ i.e. as two syllables, and
>-ge- is one way to spell of soft g (cf. also vegetable /vedZt@b@l/), but
>-gi- isn't.
Actually a poll was taken at the end of the recent gathering and quite a few people
reported using a 3-syllable pronunciation with a schwa in the middle. I don't recall the
exact results. I've always pronounced it (in my mind) as a 3-syllable word; I've never had
an opportunity to use it in conversation.
---
Rick Harrison
Replies