Re: What to Call Non-Conlangers

We could just call em 'humans' *rolls eyes* ;)

How about "Clangers".


--- Stephen Mulraney <ataltanie@...> wrote:
> David J. Peterson wrote:
> > Muke wrote:
> > <<
> > Heh, I like the idea of "conlangers" vs
> "nonlangers", technically
> > inaccurate
> > though it may be.
> >  >>
> >
> > Ha!  I think this one's the best.  First, it
> rhymes.  Second, even
> > though it would seem to technically imply that
> these are people
> > without language, the only people who use
> "prefix-lang" are
> > conlangers, so it seems like the "-lang" suffix
> implies conlanging,
> > even in a word like "natlang".  Yeah, my vote is
> for nonlanger
> > (not that we're voting).
>
> I'd second it. Actually, I thought of it as soon as
> Dan asked for
> suggestions, but didn't get around to saying it :).
> It seems a little
> bit mean, but since it's clearly nonsensical as
> well, it's IMHO much
> preferable to "avlangers", "civvies", "[mun]danes",
> etc etc...
>
> > -David
>
> s.
> --
> Stephen Mulraney   ataltane@ataltane.net
>      Klein bottle for rent  ...  inquire within.
>
I have spread my dreams under your feet;
Tread softly, because you tread on my dreams.

	-- William Butler Yeats

Send instant messages to your online friends http://uk.messenger.yahoo.com

Reply