Re: What to Call Non-Conlangers

How about Typpies?  For Typical language users . . .

On Thu, Mar 03, 2005 at 12:54:51PM -0500, Patrick Jarrett wrote:
> What about civvies? Civilians.
>
> Or if mundanes is too mean, how about shortening it to 'danes' and
> keeping the real meaning 'secret'.
>
> Then again we could call them some 'Outties' and we're the 'innies'
>
> If we don't like muggles, then maybe a play on it 'congles' (though
> that sounds like a body part) or maybe the 'nattles'.
>
> What'cha think?
>
> -- Patrick
>
> On Thu, 3 Mar 2005 11:50:30 -0500, Sally Caves <scaves@...> wrote:
> > ----- Original Message -----
> > From: "Joe" <joe@...>
> >
> > > Dan Sulani wrote:
> > >
> > >>
> > >>    Anybody else have any ideas as to what we should call
> > >> those who don't create langs?
> > >
> > >
> > > Why, Natlangers of course. The use of Natlangs is what creates them, so
> > > I think it would be appropriate.
> >
> > Ah, but that's so dull!  We're all of us natlangers, too.  None of us DON'T
> > speak a natural language.  The point was to put us in a special category,
> > like the wizards, and the rest in a comic category, like the "muggles."  I
> > had suggested avlangers, speakers of only average languages, and condensed
> > that to "avlers" (the double "v" was a purely Teonaht slip!!), but now think
> > that ordlanger (ordinary language) might be better--or "soolers" (speakers
> > of only ordinary language).   :)   ???
> >
> > Sally
> >
> > Sally
> >