As I said in the other thread, I think Geoff Eddy was the first to apply "bogus" to this sort of conlanging:
| > "Historical bogo-linguistics"? What's that?
| It's the name I've chosen for the method of conlanging whereby one
| language (the source) is given a phonology resembling that of another
| (the target). "Bogo" implies that, while fun, this is historically bogus.
| The term bogolang has been proposed (not by me!) as a classification for
| the resulting language, and I'm happy to support its offical adoption.
On Thu, 21 Feb 2013 15:15:21 -0300, Leonardo Castro <leolucas1980@...> wrote:
>A thing that comes to mind is that a conlang that is aimed to be
>realistic should have a kind of controllable rate of things such as
>homonyms. But I have an impression that conlangers dislike homonyms,
Oh man, do they ever. And it's not just the noobs! Mark Rosenfelder is big on this, for instance: there are remarks here and there in the LCC books about how to avoid homophones, taking for granted that this is a thing that you'll want to do. I remember being stricken by his avoidance when he released Uyseʔ <http://zompist.com/Uyse7.htm> -- in a lexicon that size, even with uniform sound distribution, there shoulda been a dozen or two pairs of homophones; but there were, IIRC, two, and they looked like mistakes given that they both involved a word that also was missorted alphabetically.