Re: Brithenig/Aelyan North America (was: Re: Languages in theBrithenig universe)

On Fri, 7 Apr 2000, Steg Belsky wrote:

> On Fri, 7 Apr 2000 09:49:17 -0400 John Cowan <jcowan@...>
> writes:
> > andrew wrote:
> > > I would like a better name than the Brithenig universe.  That's
> > turning
> > > into just one part of a shared world of linguafictors.  Any
> > suggestions
> > > for a proper name for the B.U.?
>
> > I was thinking about that problem last night.  It would be better to
> > call
> > it the Conlang Shared Universe, but that suggests that every conlang
> > fits in it, which many cannot: Tepa does, e.g., but Tokana does not.
> > How about the Celtic Universe?  Celtic and Celto-Romance languages
> > [snip]
Missed this the first time through. I suppose Tepa can be
squeezed in there as well, but my framing story for Tepa is
firmly rooted in the *here*. From your conversations about
*there*, there doesn't seem to be much room for Mormonism, which
is an integral part of the history of Tepa documentation.

However, if I were to cut the tether (so to speak), I'm sure it
would fit in nicely, and it might even allow me to juice up the
language some; at times I've felt somewhat constrained by the
affect that what remains of Tepa exists only in the journals of
a Mormon missionary; no matter how good a linguist Elder Walker
may have been, there were other things on his mind, and the
documentation of Tepa is bound to be spotty at best (this also
gave me an excuse for being lazy with the language :-).

Dirk

--
Dirk Elzinga
dirk.elzinga@m.cc.utah.edu