If natlangs were conlangs

A forum for discussing linguistics or just languages in general.
User avatar
Shemtov
runic
runic
Posts: 3150
Joined: 29 Apr 2013 04:06

Re: If natlangs were conlangs

Post by Shemtov » 01 Dec 2019 20:06

CarsonDaConlanger wrote:
21 Feb 2019 18:15
(Another English post cuz I'm unoriginal)

What's with the random nominal declension?! You have basically two cases: a half-assed genitive and everything else, and the markings are all the same in 3 of the four cases! You only needed 4 endings and all you came up with was
-Ø -s
-s -s
Oh, and while they claim it's a genitive, I've seen people argue it's a possessive clitic as they specify that one can say <John and Mary's dog> but
*<John's and Mary's dog>. At least admit when your terminology is unclear!!
Many children make up, or begin to make up, imaginary languages. I have been at it since I could write.
-JRR Tolkien

User avatar
eldin raigmore
korean
korean
Posts: 6399
Joined: 14 Aug 2010 19:38
Location: SouthEast Michigan

Re: If natlangs were conlangs

Post by eldin raigmore » 05 Dec 2019 16:12

Creyeditor wrote:
31 Jan 2019 21:20
Why do people always say bad things about natlangs in this thread? I just want to say that I would really enjoy the crazyness of the languages of Vanuatu if they were conlangs. They are so nicely crafted.
Look at Creyeditor’s post from a quasi-“meta” PoV, and supposing any naivete (if that’s the right word) was “put on” for effect in accordance with the spirit of this thread, my opinion is that it was the perfect post!

Post Reply