195228Re: On Creating Altlangs
- Feb 19, 2013On Tue, 19 Feb 2013 12:54:06 -0800, Roger Mills <romiltz@...> wrote:
>General question: what's the "etymology" of _bogolang_? bogus??? It's new to me. Incidentally I find "glosarch" a perfectly good formation--- after all, we have autarch (Gene Wolfe's books), heresiarch and a few others (tetrarch IIRC, what's that?), hardly in wide circulation."Bogus", yes. For me the term calls particularly to mind Geoff Eddy's primer which invents a Slavicised romlang:
If I read the initial paragraph not too wrongly, Geoff was the first one to apply "bogus" to the process but the formation "bogolang" was someone else's contribution.
On Tue, 19 Feb 2013 21:33:37 +0100, Jörg Rhiemeier <joerg_rhiemeier@...> wrote:
>On Tuesday 19 February 2013 20:39:08 R A Brown wrote:
>> I fail to understand how a living language
>> can be "almost a real life altlang."
>A "real life altlang" is a contradiction in terms.
Agreed, as is "real life bogolang"; this part of the thread is kinda fatuous. If we try to force the terms to apply to natlangs we catch anything that has had its phonology (for that's the part conlangers usually substitute) influenced by language contact effects, and that's a lot. Even if two natlangs did converge phonologically so much that the sound changes applying to them eventually became identical, what is there to make one the template and one the bogus one?
- << Previous post in topic Next post in topic >>