Teka: New Romance conlang

[Testyal]

2. Somewhat related to the above, don't bite the newbies. Just because someone knows less about languages or linguistics (or anything, really) than you do does not give you an excuse to be rude to them. We do not have any minimum standard of linguistic knowledge required for membership on this board, so don't make it look like we did.

R.I.P. Rules.

[SLiV]

2. Somewhat related to the above, don't bite the newbies. Just because someone knows less about languages or linguistics (or anything, really) than you do does not give you an excuse to be rude to them. We do not have any minimum standard of linguistic knowledge required for membership on this board, so don't make it look like we did.

R.I.P. Rules.

The rules state that we shouldn't bite people who are new to conlanging. We shouldn't bite people who are still learning, but we should bite people who refuse to learn at all.

He's not new. He's been doing this for ages which is why we feel free to take the piss out of it.
He never changes and it's just ridiculous. So yeah, this another arpee vomitlang.

[lsd]

Homo homini lupus est...
...The dogs bark, the caravan goes by

[eldin raigmore]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=u_QhGloOIt8

While Arpee may have done an in-some-respects-not-very-good job, he's done a rather thorougher-than-average one with better-than-average follow-through.

It takes more grit than some of us have to make such a translation, and pronounce and record it on a public channel such as youtube.

Admittedly others with just as much grit have also excelled, or at least done a notably adequate job, at the linguistics of it.

Also see
http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v605/ ... Dragon.gif
and
http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v605/ ... gIahad.jpg

[TBPO]

Did this language evolve from Latin? If not, it's not Romance language.

[GoshDiggityDangit]

Did this language evolve from Latin? If not, it's not Romance language.

The user hasn't been active in over a decade, but looking through the thread I think it's more like an... oligoisolating Tokiponito, with Romance inspiration.

[Omzinesý]

Damn how cruel the critique has been. Why can't people just be quiet if they think someone's project is nonsense.

[Porphyrogenitos]

What strikes me more is how few of the users who posted in this thread are still active on the forum today. It seems like the CBB's active userbase steadily declined after a peak in the early 2010s. There are what, maybe a dozen people who post in the Conlangs section more than once a month now?

[Arayaz]

What strikes me more is how few of the users who posted in this thread are still active on the forum today. It seems like the CBB's active userbase steadily declined after a peak in the early 2010s. There are what, maybe a dozen people who post in the Conlangs section more than once a month now?

Yeah, and that's what I like about it. It's a small community, like a little village. This fosters a sense of connection and friendliness even among people without much personal connection. It's one of the reasons I think forums are so much better than modern social media.

[Pabappa]

a big part of the reason i left around Nov 2020 (or was it 2021?) was that the software here doesn't allow me to post inline images the way I do on Discord. I could sign up for an image hosting service, but that's an extra step and only some of them allow inline posting. phpBB in general has limitations that can't be worked around. so I switched to Discord. I think some other people are posting on Reddit.

But I came back because there are some people active here who aren't also on Discord, and because I was filling up the screen so much on Discord that I got self-conscious about it. phpBB is much better for scratchpads where I need lots of screen space to work. I'm glad this community is still here.

[Kesshin]

Reading this thread gives me anxiety about being "linguistic" enough to still make an actual conlang and not be hounded about it.
I'm hoping threads like this are rare...

[eldin raigmore]

Reading this thread gives me anxiety about being "linguistic" enough to still make an actual conlang and not be hounded about it.
I'm hoping threads like this are rare...

I think you will probably be OK.
What your conlang actually does, is way more important than what words you use to describe or explain it.

The main advantage of using established terms with established meanings, is saving time and effort; both your readers’ and your own.

If you make up a new term, or use a familiar term with a new meaning, that’s OK if you explain it just before or right after the first time you use it.
But later uses may be rather distant from the first use.
In book-length discussions by real-life linguisticians, all these terms and definitions are collected into a glossary that’s made an appendix by the authors or editors. So, later uses of your novel term or novel definition, can be footnoted to point to the glossary in the appendix.
….
If one of us thinks they recognize the phenomenon or situation you’re describing, and knows a more-established term that you could have used instead (especially if there are probably many CBBeans who will recognize the established term and already know the established definition), they may tell you about it. They may do so in a PM if they think you might be embarrassed to see it included on the thread. (But many of us won’t think of that; we are no longer accustomed to being embarrassed when someone informs us of something worthwhile that we seemed not to know!)
….
Nevertheless I repeat: it’s much more important that your explanation be accurate and complete, than that you use the “correct” terms “correctly”, in your explanation.
(BTW “correct” and “correctly” might better be replaced by “customary” and “customarily”, in the above sentence.)

[Kesshin]

I think you will probably be OK.
What your conlang actually does, is way more important than what words you use to describe or explain it.

The main advantage of using established terms with established meanings, is saving time and effort; both your readers’ and your own.

If you make up a new term, or use a familiar term with a new meaning, that’s OK if you explain it just before or right after the first time you use it.
But later uses may be rather distant from the first use.
In book-length discussions by real-life linguisticians, all these terms and definitions are collected into a glossary that’s made an appendix by the authors or editors. So, later uses of your novel term or novel definition, can be footnoted to point to the glossary in the appendix.
….
If one of us thinks they recognize the phenomenon or situation you’re describing, and knows a more-established term that you could have used instead (especially if there are probably many CBBeans who will recognize the established term and already know the established definition), they may tell you about it. They may do so in a PM if they think you might be embarrassed to see it included on the thread. (But many of us won’t think of that; we are no longer accustomed to being embarrassed when someone informs us of something worthwhile that we seemed not to know!)
….
Nevertheless I repeat: it’s much more important that your explanation be accurate and complete, than that you use the “correct” terms “correctly”, in your explanation.
(BTW “correct” and “correctly” might better be replaced by “customary” and “customarily”, in the above sentence.)

Thank you.
So as long as I explain why i'm saying "polysyntheticism" and define it as "the aspect of being polysynthetic", and it makes logistical sense, then i'm alright.

[Arayaz]

I think you will probably be OK.
What your conlang actually does, is way more important than what words you use to describe or explain it.

The main advantage of using established terms with established meanings, is saving time and effort; both your readers’ and your own.

If you make up a new term, or use a familiar term with a new meaning, that’s OK if you explain it just before or right after the first time you use it.
But later uses may be rather distant from the first use.
In book-length discussions by real-life linguisticians, all these terms and definitions are collected into a glossary that’s made an appendix by the authors or editors. So, later uses of your novel term or novel definition, can be footnoted to point to the glossary in the appendix.
….
If one of us thinks they recognize the phenomenon or situation you’re describing, and knows a more-established term that you could have used instead (especially if there are probably many CBBeans who will recognize the established term and already know the established definition), they may tell you about it. They may do so in a PM if they think you might be embarrassed to see it included on the thread. (But many of us won’t think of that; we are no longer accustomed to being embarrassed when someone informs us of something worthwhile that we seemed not to know!)
….
Nevertheless I repeat: it’s much more important that your explanation be accurate and complete, than that you use the “correct” terms “correctly”, in your explanation.
(BTW “correct” and “correctly” might better be replaced by “customary” and “customarily”, in the above sentence.)

Thank you.
So as long as I explain why i'm saying "polysyntheticism" and define it as "the aspect of being polysynthetic", and it makes logistical sense, then i'm alright.

Oh, yeah. Being linguisticky isn't always necessary. And flame wars like this are very rare; there's only been one in my almost two years here.

[sangi39]

Sorry, just to reply again, similar to the "Peto" thread, don't reply to effectively dead posts (again, this one is over 12 years old) if you have nothing substantial to add, especially when the users involved originally aren't around any more to respond

The following discussion has been nice, civil, and informative, but it really should go somewhere else like the Quick Questions threads, or the Conversation Thread

As an aside, to Kesshin, I do feel like, luckily, this kind of thread is pretty rare. I will often say that the Board is very easy to moderate, in no small part to people generally behaving quite well, but if you do have any concerns or feel like someone has broken one of the House Rules, we'd absolutely encourage you to reach out to the Moderators or Admins and report posts (mentioning which rule you think was broken and why and all that jazz. Fingers crossed you'll never have to do that, but the option is there