zompist bboard

Better realisation of the idea behind English with epistemic modality:

With modal verbs, the simple past tense cannot be made. So a better way is to shorten phrases such as "by reason I know", "by experience I know" etc down to one word. I.e. "breasknow" /bɹiznʌw/ and "byxpieknow" /bajkʰspʰinʌw/.

Does something honestly count as a conlang when it's literally just a language + 12 words?

And I don't know what's going on here, but I suggest b'reason/breason/beason and b'ex/bex anyways.

valiums wrote:Does something honestly count as a conlang when it's literally just a language + 12 words?

I think so, just a really small one.
Do you think this should go in C&C Quickies?

valiums wrote:I don't know what's going on here

What don't you understand?

valiums wrote:but I suggest b'reason/breason/beason and b'ex/bex anyways.

Good point. There's no point in putting the "I know" bit since it's there every time.

This prouldn't be a conlang.

clawgrip wrote:This prouldn't be a conlang.

It's still conlanging.

It's hardly very interesting 'conlanging'. It's just an extension of the notion of a relex, just without any relexing.

I can not be the only one here who appreciates neologisms and expansions of previously existing languages.

Conscious applications to language are part of the reason why I hesitate to make a clear distinction between natural and artificial.

They might be neat, but I'll reiterate that it's not interesting when viewed as 'conlanging'.

How about a thread where people suggest various improvements or additions to English (NOT in the spelling), and everyone tries to use them.

valiums wrote:How about a thread where people suggest various improvements or additions to English (NOT in the spelling), and everyone tries to use them.

I support this idea.