Re: THEORY: irregular conlangs

On Fri, 1 Oct 1999 00:28:29 +0100, Daniel Andreasson
<noldo@...> wrote:

>Anyway. My two questions. What do you guys think
>of this? And do you do this in your conlangs?
>AFAIK, in most languages the copula verb is
>irregular, but most conlangs seem to be very regular.
>Am I right or wrong? I know many of you (as I once)
>want an extremely logical language, one that you
>have to invent because there aren't any logical=20
>natlangs. But those of you who persue a natlangy
>touch of your conlang, how far do you go in your
>irregularities?
Not far enough! Some irregularities naturally crept into my languages and=
 I
kept them, but I haven't been trying to add irregularities for realism.
That's definitely one thing I'll want to keep in mind for my reforms of =
the
Kolagian languages once I get around to it (i.e., when my work load gets
back to normal and I actually have time for time-consuming hobbies like
Kolagian language reform).

--=20
languages of Kolagia---> =
+---<http://www.io.com/~hmiller/languages.html>---
      Thryomanes        /"If all Printers were determin'd not to print =
any
   (Herman Miller)     / thing till they were sure it would offend no =
body,
   moc.oi @ rellimh <-/  there would be very little printed." -Ben =
Franklin