Re: OT: What makes a good conlang? (was Re: Super OT: Re: CHAT: JRRT)
| From: | Jeffrey Henning <jeffrey@...> |
|---|
| Date: | Monday, March 8, 2004, 23:55 |
|---|
On Mon, 8 Mar 2004 17:10:43 -0500, H. S. Teoh <hsteoh@...> wrote:
>> other hand demonstrate. I'd always prefer a brief sketch which shows
>> masterful treatment of certain details over a complete conlang which
>> consists of a humdrum, obviously unreflected SAE grammar and a
>> randomly generated vocabulary.
>
>I fully agree. This is one of the main reasons I stayed away from
>automatically generating Ebisédian vocabulary in any way, even though that
>meant that I have to be content with its incomplete lexicon for many more
>years.
I think you are unnecessarily conflating what can be done as two steps:
* generate random forms that fulfill the phonotactics of the language
* evaluate the forms to intuit what meanings they correspond to
Best regards,
Jeffrey
Reply