- I didn't know the meaning of bogolang either, but I had no courage
enough to ask...
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,
2013/2/21 MorphemeAddict <lytlesw@...>:
> On Thu, Feb 21, 2013 at 12:38 PM, Patrick Dunn <pwdunn@...> wrote:
>> That's what I assumed, and therefore do not like the term very much. It
>> seems to imply an attempt to pass something off as something it's not.
>> Ditto. Might as well call it "fakelang".
>> On Thu, Feb 21, 2013 at 11:04 AM, Jörg Rhiemeier <joerg_rhiemeier@...
>> > Hallo conlangers!
>> > On Thursday 21 February 2013 18:03:13 And Rosta wrote:
>> > > is the _bogo_ in _bogolang_ from _bogus_ or _bogof_ (buy one get one
>> > free)
>> > > or something else? If _bogus_, what sense is meant? Something that
>> > > real but is in fact false?
>> > I think it is from _bogus_ in the sense of looking real but being
>> > false.
>> > --
>> > ... brought to you by the Weeping Elf
>> > http://www.joerg-rhiemeier.de/Conlang/index.html
>> > "Bêsel asa Éam, a Éam atha cvanthal a cvanth atha Éamal." - SiM 1:1
>> Second Person, a chapbook of poetry by Patrick Dunn, is now available for
>> order from Finishing Line
- 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.