Re: Bootstrapping a cooperative conlang

Gary Shannon wrote:

> (12) I think one of the reasons Kalusa failed was that too many people were
> pulling in too many different directions. That and the fact that some
> contributors headed off on some pretty bi
> bizarre tangents that adversely affected the usability of the language. Perhaps
> by setting up a situation in which the language CANNOT be discussed, but MUST
> be used, instead, then the language would, by necessity, evolve to become
> usable.
I started a reply this morning, which I think I lost (and hope I didn't
accidentally send incomplete...), getting at this point. I like the idea
of a collaborative language developed primarily through use of the
conlang itself. People using the language to communicate with others
seems like a good method for growing the language organically, and I'd
think it would encourage more fluency among the collaborators, leading
to more and better progress, overall. It would prevent people from
influencing the language without seeing how their ideas play out in
actual use.

I have been entertaining thoughts of a collaborative conlang for about a
year now. My thought was to create a basic grammar and base vocabulary,
and then see what happens to it when it is released into the wild. The
sticking point was finding incentive for people to come play with it. My
friends are tolerant, but there are limits to their tolerance for my
conlang craziness.

Mia.