Re: First Conlang...? & What Happened?
|Date:||Wednesday, January 7, 2004, 18:37|
Dirk Elzinga wrote:
> On Tuesday, January 6, 2004, at 11:36 PM, David Peterson wrote:
>> <<snip discussion>>
>> I didn't mean to say that all first conlangs were that way (indeed,
>> mine was a rip-off of the Arabic triconsonantal root system); I was
>> just trying to remember what the stereotype was. A stereotype's not
>> always true, and it also isn't to say that euroclones or agglutinating
>> languages are bad.
> I didn't understand you to mean those things. However, there is a
> reason stereotypes exist. When I first joined CONLANG and the
> artlangers started coming out of the woodwork and joined the list,
> there seemed to me to be a proliferation of languages which had the
> following features:
> * ergative/absolutive alignment
> * large noun classification systems (i.e., gender)
> * Celtic-style mutation
> * an abundance of case forms (à la Finnish)
> * simple agglutinative morphology
That's probably because they're all as far from English as you can get.