Re: Non-human languages

>Now, it's easy enough to say, "This is ridiculous!   It's nothing remotely
>even resembling a language!"   The more interesting question, in my mind,
>is: If
>they feel it worth their while enough to devote a section to made-up
>"language" in every issue they put out, how is it that we're not getting
>paid to
>create languages?
Regrettably, because those contributors were either not paid or where paid
something like US$20 for their whole work. I myself know only too well the
glazed looks discussions of languages (nat as well as aux/con) illicit from
the vast body of people in the USA.

I do have one acquaintance who created a fully workable Romulan grammar +
huge vocab which he sold via a contact to one of the motion picture studios.

_________________________________________________________________
Add MSN 8 Internet Software to your current Internet access and enjoy
patented spam control and more.  Get two months FREE!
http://join.msn.com/?page=dept/byoa