Re: Introduction, and a Couple Questions

>On Sun, Jan 27, 2008 at 12:50:00PM -0500, Parker Glynn-Adey wrote:
>
>> Hi there, my name is Parker Glynn-Adey.
Hello!

>> About conlanging though:
>>    -Why do most people start their work on a language with their phonology?
>
>Couple of answers.
>
>1) Somebody wrote a Language Creation Kit that said people should, and a
>lot of people were influenced by that.  (The ZBB answer.)
>
>2) Because if you don't, you end up having to fix it later, and that means
>discarding your precious, precious wordsssses, my precious!
>
>3) Some of us don't, really.  I usually start with a concept, grammatical
>or morphological (does this make me an engelanger?), but those are sketches
>that don't get very far.  Ironically, the language I am stuck with, my
>first one, is saddled with an uninspired and naively IE-like phonology,
>precisely because I didn't know what I was doing at 13 when I started it.
>tylakèhlpë'fö,
>Amanda
And I don't think anyone mentioned yet
4) It's pretty easy once you get the hang of it. Mostly because on the side
of grammar, everything affects just about everything else - not on the level
of  "dative morphology affects inventory of tree vocabulary", but more
generally as in "morphology affects lexicon structure". Phonology, tho,
forms something of an independant unit. Most of the time you can even work
the phonemics out first (as much as needed to start coining words), then
tack on intonation, history etc. if desired.

I've got a few dozen phonology sketches lying around; only three-four have
any grammar & lexicon whatsoever to go with them... it's like an addiction.
The conlanging equivalent of a snack, I'd say. :)

John Vertical