Re: OT-ish: txt - Could it replace Standard Written English?

Staving Andreas Johansson:

>PS I should decide the other day if I should refer to Tairezazh's relatives
>with their Tairezan names (which are the names I typically use in-cortex), or
>by their own self-designations (which would perhaps make more sense). I may
>not matter much if I speak of _Steianzh_ (Tairezan name-form) or _Steienzh_
>(native equivalent), but people may be forgiven for not realizing that
>_Tsárizh_ and _Searixina_ isn't the same. Do anyone have any opinions on this?
My practice is that each language starts of with an external name, a label
by which I can refer to it in English. My languages are all in the early
stages of planning, so there are few that I know well enough to work out
their internal names, ie what their speakers call them. When referring to
an external name, I use quote marks. Internal names don't get quote marks.
I like to work out an internal name as soon as possible.

Examples
Khangathyagon and Wavoragon have always been known by their internal names.
"Old Imperial" became "The Emperor's Way" and then Magikimnaz [Ma:gikimnaz].
"Late Imperial" became Magin~as.
"Montanic" has just become Yagh Tyalpy Tyubvul (gh is an aspirated voiced
velar stop, ty and py are platatalised voiceless stops, and bv is a voiced
labial affricate).
"The Forest Language" became Magzhelyagon, but that's a bit of an odd one
because it's a Khangathyagon name for the language rather than a truly
internal one.

Pete Bleackley

Replies