Re: A question
| From: | Boudewijn Rempt <bsarempt@...> |
|---|
| Date: | Wednesday, May 30, 2001, 5:20 |
|---|
On Tue, 29 May 2001, [Adam K. Shuck] wrote:
> Ok I enjoy designing the alphabets for my languages and the actual
> grammatical structures, but I don't stress so much on morphology and syntax
> and all those other big words that I have no clue. I'm sorry if I'm seeming
> childish, but I dont understand half the conversations that go on on this
> mailing list. Please respond. Isn't it ok not to think about all that stuff
> when designing a language?
>
Of course it's ok - if you are satisfied with it. It's just that a lot
of conlangers really like getting deeper and deeper into linguistics,
learning a lot as we go on. A lot of people even go and study linguistics
at a university, at least partly because of conlanging. Without knowledge
of linguistics and languages, most conlangs are simply English with all the
words replaced with funny sequences of letters and apostrophs (or any other
language you happen to know - my first language was based on French). Anyway,
a little learning never hurt.
But if you will let us have as many conversations that feature linguistic
terminology, we won't berate you when you design a grammatical structure
without word-formation or sentence-formation.
Boudewijn Rempt | http://www.valdyas.org
Replies