> Hallo!
>
> On Wed, 16 Feb 2005 19:52:00 -0500,
> Sally Caves <scaves@...> wrote:
>
> > [...]
> >
> > >> > I find naturalistic conlangs (i.e., conlangs
> that look like natlangs,
> > >> > with a sense of historicity) beautiful and
> conlangs that give away
> > >> > their artificiality at first sight ugly, but
> there are people around
> > >> > here who have a different taste.
> > >>
> > >> So Jörg, what conlangs give their artificiality
> away? There are so many
> > >> features of a language that could considered
> "artificial." Many of the
> > >> linguistic scholars of glossolalia were so sure
> they could identify the
> > >> artificial aspects of that linguistic practice
> by noting the 1) open
> > >> syllables, 2) reduced phonology, 3) echoism,
> etc. that we find in
> > >> Hawaiian,
> > >> for instance. An over regularity of grammar?
> > >
> > > It is not easy to say, but an extreme regularity
> of phonology, grammar
> > > and word formation looks artificial, so does,
> for example, a language
> > > which superimposes some sort of grammatical
> categories onto the IPA
> > > chart.
> >
> > Now what would that be? Curious.
>
> An example (conlang, of course; I doubt that there
> are natlangs
> like that):
>
>
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/lostlangs/message/269
>
> Here's a quote:
>
> ] The division voluntary/involuntary is the main
> one, with a plosive
> ] (when representing no other manner, or, in their
> linguistic
> ] terms, 'clear' it is ?) representing voluntary,
> and fricatives
> ] (when 'clear' h). Other manners are indicateded by
> POA. If mutual,
> ] bilabial or labiodental, if reflexive alvolear, if
> conditional,
> ] velar. In the case of velar, for fricative one
> uses a post-alvolear
> ] fricative.
>
> The author in question abandoned that idea after
> being told (by me)
> that it doesn't feel natural.