Re: Discuss the features?

Javier wrote:
> >
> >I've been reading material and visiting sites concerning conlanging
> >and became aware of the perils of discussing IALs... or could it be
> >that I'm too much affraid [for nothing]? I've never taken part in
> >such heated discussions (not that I'm willing to), but I believe
> >they don't ever take us anywhere.
>
>So do I; I DO HATE flame wars and that's why I explicitly
>said "Regard it just as a conlang". But several people
>here have explicitly said they like to start flame wars
If someone explicitly said that he/she likes to start flamewars, I certainly
missed that ...

>and
>so they started to make irrelevant questions (I mean,
>irrelevant to what I said I was here to discuss: the
>features of the language, not politics) like "How do you
>plan to introduce the language?" and the like. So I think
>it wasn't that unjustified that I got annoyed.
>
>I thought that saying "It is intended as an IAL" was
>necessary for you to know what kind of requirements the
>design of the language should meet, but know I feel it
>would have been much better that I had simply said "Hey,
>please have a look at this conlang project and tell me
>what you think about it".
I'm not certain that the kind of criticism you'd received in that case
would've been much use to you. The average conlang critic _likes_ unfamiliar
phonologies, idiosyncratic idioms and apparent irregularities. Some'd even
suggest you make the orthography less regular, either because they think
it'd be more naturalistic, or because they idiosyncratic spelling
aesthetically appealing. None of this would be very relevant to an IAL,
which, AFAICT, still is what Futurese is supposed to be.

(This is not intended as a defense of any earlier statements by me or anyone
else, only as an observation.)

                                               Andreas

_________________________________________________________________
Send and receive Hotmail on your mobile device: http://mobile.msn.com