Re: CHAT: The profile of a conlanger

* Grandsire, C.A. (grandsir@natlab.research.philips.com) [991029 14:58]:
> Irina Rempt-Drijfhout wrote:
> >
> > > T or F -- Another close call.  T-type conlangers will be into it
> > > because they like building elegant abstract language structures;
> > > F-type conlangers will be into it to write poetry.
I'm INTP, and have been so since I did the Myers-Briggs for the very
first time almost three years ago. Auxlanger? Feh!

>         I know that this has already been debated among us, but I am always
> uncomfortable when someone speaks of "finishing" a conlang. Natlangs are
> never finished (except if they are dead), why could conlangs be
> finished? Of course, if by "finished" you mean: "put in a state where
> one can write in it about anything or nearly anything", or "put in a
> state where it is actually usable like any other language", then
> everything's good. But can we give this meaning to the verb "finish", or
> should we coin a new word for that? :)
Stable 'n usable? Stable because it doesn't change every week, and
usable because there are enough words and grammatical structure to be
able to use it, be it translayion or poetry or whatever? Neither are
states my lang are close to achieving... *sigh*

ustable, stauble... hmmm


tal., who'll be spending the weekend installing new hard drives. Yay!
--
"Better living through conlanging"