conlang survey part 2 + translation ex

--- yscreus la Heather Rice
<florarroz@...>:

> > 2)  For being lovers of words, their origin,
> > and their use, conlangers sure are dry when it
> > comes to anything actually written in their
> > languages.  Only 31% had anything written in
> > their language, other than translations (I
> > didn’t count these in my calculations).  43%
> > had absolutely nothing written in their
> > language.  Why this is so I am still wondering.
Myáni, allir miremenu ta númentanna longonoyeryo.
Yeah, people tend to skip the best of the language creation.

Mí aláte lawe pelenna noyalonguryo qayasse nyámi aran.
But just examine the purpose of conlangs with very few literature.

Uzi lawe lalanqe hewusse qi busaussa teher irad qedap.
They are often just a play with sounds and systems never seen before.

Alyissir noyahurwu tinteq neo.
Their creators tend to leave them for a new idea.

Tenoywu hweunna ibo feq uneq long yassinte.
They don't create enough word for it to be a speakable language.

Engiyo won u dolqeya doronahtesse qi ú noyahue nyámi uduah.
Probably because they are lazy and word forming is boring indeed.

Mí ú wagua noyalongieryo neq.
But it is a way of conlanging too.

Gaq e-maudjissit e-mbeq e-noyenna qayassenna tandosso neb e-mbelongorweq?
Why do you expect everybody to create a whole literature and culture behind each language?

> It's a time consuming thing to write long texts
> in any language - English included! - and we may
> also feel a little practical about it. Should I
But if you assume that a lot of conlanger here creates a language
which he/she thinks it sounds fair and don't write at least a few texts in it...
it's something odd to me.

> There's also the matter of the fluidity of most
> of our conlangs: what you read in a text today
> may change radically tomorrow or next year. It's
> a bloody pain to have to change everything to
> reflect new realities - especially when we'd
> probably have to do it three or four times in the
> life of an average conlang. The more texts we
> write, the more we'd have to change.
There is a good excuse for not changing old texts especially for
languages with conhistory:    a r c h a i c   f o r m      :P
And if you don't change your language's genaral view and vocabulary
to wholly unrecognizable this will probably fit.

For myself, I started my near-to-stable Long Wer from zero, without carefully
planning all the structure of the language, I just started writing something, similar to
Egyptian, with about 50 words and I just wrote, wrote in the language and when
I met a new grammatical problem then I applied a rule and thus, my language
evolved in my mind as a natlang could evolve through the centuries.

And well, when I found this list and saw the accurate planning of your sytems,
I was ashamed because my little primitive language was thousands of years
far from clear and original systems some of you have. And i started working
linguistically, I read more on languages and started to intruduce complexities into my language.

I just tell all this to see not the language evolved itself but the literature where it was born.
--
Mau
Ábrahám Zsófia alias Mau Rauszer
|  http://www.hiaqimau.tk  | http://www.longwer.tk |
"Yú lawe ta mau yibali taqe yamissi qi u neb dagu tawiy iq." -- Kipling

Replies