Wait, that's what you didn't like? I said that was tongue-in-cheek! And it's obviously, I thought, not denigrating your guide at all, because your guide doesn't address not making a language like the one you're making. My comment was thus intended as an addendum, not a correction. As I said, I think that guides like this can be valuable. I just think that people should read them bearing in mind that they're not just narrow guides to construct a specific language, they also can be applied more broadly. In the same way that if you were writing a guide on composing canons, I'd point out that one didn't have to just use that to compose strict canons, one could also apply those techniques to enrich compositions in other, less rigid genres. Non-concatenative morphology and counterpoint more broadly are more interesting, in my view, than a priori pseudo-semitic languages and strict canon - but of course that shouldn't be taken to abnegate the value of guides to the latter as a way of understanding the former - indeed, they should expand their interest (because you don't have to want to make a semitic language to be able to gain something from understanding semitic languages). Even Mozart read Gradus ad Parnassum (I think?). But if you found the comment rude, of course I'm sorry about that.
[methru: thanks. And don't worry - we none of us are good enough at being supportive of one another, so no blame attaches to anyone in particular. But feel free to share, over in that thread, what you liked and didn't like...]
But the river tripped on her by and by, lapping
as though her heart was brook: Why, why, why! Weh, O weh
I'se so silly to be flowing but I no canna stay!