Re: What to Call Non-Conlangers
| From: | Stephen Mulraney <ataltanie@...> |
|---|
| Date: | Thursday, March 3, 2005, 20:30 |
|---|
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.
Reply