There was supposed to be some allophonic variation. I don't know what phonotactics is.
So look it up
I suppose you're right, but what you said only goes to show that a phonology is not an ingredient list.
I never compared a "phonology" to an ingredient list; I compared your post
to an ingredient list. But your post is not a phonology (for the reasons explained), so this response of yours is completely nonsensical.
I'm just saying that if you really know how a conlang should be, you should be doing one yourself.
I know what you're saying, what I'm
saying is that what you're saying doesn't make any sense. It's like you have absolutely no notion of the field of criticism and its role in educated discourse.
If you think something should be one way, then you should do it that way. Follow the Golden Rule.
1. I'm not saying I think that.
2. That's not what the Golden Rule says in any case.
So, your real life friends listen to you talk about conlangs and give you useful feedback on them? In that case, never let them out of your sight! They are rarer than Yangtse river dolphins!
I don't see how they are "rare" - I think lots of real life people think the idea of a made-up language is interesting.
"Thinking X is interesting" is not the same as "learning about X and offering useful feedback on it". A lot of people think it's "interesting" that I'm learning Irish, for instance. Not one of them, however, would be able to offer me any useful feedback on my Irish pronunciation or grammar.
So, what useful feedback have your friends offered you on your conlangs to date? What have you changed about them because of what they said to you about them?
And you gave up conlanging because you didn't like the idea of making up languages?
Holy leaps of logic! "My first attempt to use e-mail was over twenty years ago." Do you conclude from that statement that I gave up on using e-mail?
It's very obvious to me that you disagree with the very concept of a conlang and wish nobody would make one.
Now you've gone beyond leaps of logic and into straight on loonyland. Absolutely nothing I've said or done here could be construed as implying this.
"Interest" is not the same thing as "unconstructive criticism". You have not shown any real interest in my conlang or anyone else's conlang.
And how have you come to that conclusion?
That's not true. Constructive criticism is just fine and I welcome it. Unconstructive criticism, which is what you give us, is a different story.
Give me some examples of what you consider to be "constructive criticism". (I think this will prove my point that your definition of the term deviates from the accepted usage, but I'd be happy to find out otherwise.) For instance, is imbecilica's response "constructive criticism" or not? Why or why not?
I think there will be allomorphic variation, but I haven't worked on the tense system in a while. It wasn't nice to assume that I was going for an artificial-sounding conlang just because it's incomplete.
I never assumed that! REREAD WHAT I WROTE. I said "You don't have to have this in your conlang, but if you don't, it will sound very artificial, like Esperanto. Perhaps that's what you're going for? You tell me." That is, I stated outright that I didn't know what you were going for and asked you (very nicely) to tell me what it was. Why would I do that if--as you claim--I thought I already knew the answer?
Historically, "will" meant "want", e.g. "Who wil the curnell of the nut must breake the shell" (16th cent.).
Yes, but Tikolmian isn't just a copy of English.
Let me try another question: What does caq-
mean as a non-auxiliary verb?
You keep using the words "criticism" and "criticise" in curiously pejorative ways. On the contrary, there's nothing anyone can do for you more that's more helpful than criticising your work.
Constructive criticism is helpful. Unconstructive criticism is not.[/quote]
How "helpful" criticism is depends on your ability to make could use of it. If you're not able to accept and interpret constructive criticism for what it is, that does not necessarily make it "unconstructive".
Of course I want to make my langs better, but complaining about them doesn't help.
Who's complaining? I'm ASKING YOU QUESTIONS. You've got some kind of short circuit in you brain that turns ordinary inquiries into "complaints". If someone asks you "Why the tie?" do you automatically assume that means that they hate Western male formal dress and want you to go around naked?
You have every right to say things about it, but you have no right to criticize everything I say and find fault in my every word for no good reason.
Show me where I "find fault" with what you've done.
It's not a healthy attitude to think that conlanging is just purely wrong and that everyone who conlangs should be constantly criticized. If you think I should work on my conlang for a while longer, why aren't you working on your own? If you think conlanging is wrong, why do you give "advice" to conlangers?
Again, you prove my point. Every thing I say you interpret as "criticism". You've created from whole cloth this absurd notion that I "hate conlanging". This is why I conclude that you just aren't yet ready to put your work into a public forum for comment. Not because your work isn't good enough (I think it's quite respectable for a fledgling attempt or, believe me, I wouldn't be commenting on it at all), but because you aren't emotionally ready to handle the responses.