Re: Relexes Pt. 1: Defence

Andreas Johansson wrote at 2003-12-14 19:53:05 (+0100)
 >
 > And re: the proper meaning of "relex", I've always seen the
 > retention of the parent lang's grammar as the important thing;
 > surely many "naive relexes" have sported a few words with no exact
 > equivalent in the parent language's lexicon, included just because
 > the creator felt is was nifty to have a word for that concept.
 >

Yes... but these are additions to the vocabulary, and could as easily
be new words in the parent language.  They don't redraw the boundaries
of the existing lexicon.

The fundemental nature of a relex conlang, as I have understood the
term, is that the structure of the parent language remains intact
under a superficial veneer of novelty.  Of course, there's no sharp
boundary to this category.