| abstract
| - For all those obcessing about or complaing or talking or referencing KSL's (Kitchen Sink Language's) go here vii 11:34, April 22, 2010 (AEST)
* Hi
* Con: The script [no offence] is an eyesore, seriously the people would be plagued with dyslexia trying to read/write it. vii April 16, 2010
* Pro: A little bit Latin-sounding, quite efficient. A little heavy on the vowels, but other than that, not half bad. —Detectivekenny; (Info) Preceding text certified by R. Xun as of 01:52, April 17, 2010 (UTC)
* Con: The script is dyslexia inducing, phonology is barely said anything about. I suggest you try improving the script, making things more distinct and elaborate on phonology The Emperor Zelos 10:42, April 19, 2010 (UTC)
* Dyslexia inducing? Then all Arabs must be dyslectic... Also, check out Armenian :) Adagio burner 15:10, April 19, 2010 (UTC)
* I woudlnt be suprised if either one is highly dyslexicThe Emperor Zelos 22:50, April 19, 2010 (UTC)
* Eh? I thought it was just that those types of languages were hard for dyslexic people? idk —Detectivekenny; (Info) Preceding text certified by R. Xun as of
* Pro: The language concept is original and interesting, although it seems somewhat difficult to grasp. The writing is also instigating, the use of spaces as a constituent part of characters is original and, above all, most of the characters being composed of two parts, mirroring the tuples system of the language, are an evidence that it was well planned. I would say it is an "audacious" project, with both positive and negative aspects contained in this adjective, but in my opinion the balance goes to the "positive" side because of the originality.Panglossa | Talk 14:13, April 27, 2010 (UTC)
* Delang
* Pro It has an okay variety of diversity in the phonemes and some great examples in the language. Personally I don't like it, but its pretty decent and has some good work on it so it's a pro from me. vii April 22, 2010 Not bad for a language started in November 2009...?--Koppadasao 00:39, April 22, 2010 (UTC)
* quite good acctrually The Emperor Zelos 05:56, April 22, 2010 (UTC)
* Con: Not that I don't like the language, but the Esperanto-like vocabulary sourcing is strange. Also, the project needs some more work on some points - or, at least, the article needs more explanations on some points.Panglossa | Talk 14:13, April 27, 2010 (UTC)
* Mis Hio
* Con: [At least in my opinion] the way roots and words join together in sentences in confusing in the sense of the letters and words being negated, this makes for confusing reading. I think this could be either explained better or represented in a better way. viiApril 16, 2010
* I could not decipher the above (letters and words being negated? what is this about?), except for the "confused" part Adagio burner 15:10, April 19, 2010 (UTC)
* I meant in relation to the combination of what you called "roots and root phrases" and the elmination of the particles nd repeated root words/things. I think you have done a decent job at explaining it but I think its still a bit messy and the whole idea of it creates unneeded confusion and (for lack of a better word in this context) complexity. vii 08:22, April 20, 2010 (AEST)
* It's actually a very clean system based on few concise rules. Nothing messy about it. But yea, it's quite different from everything you'll find elsewhere, so you may have to re-read it a few times before you get it :) Adagio burner 00:37, April 20, 2010 (UTC)
* I won't put my con here but I tend to find languages with really short words redundant because there are too many spaces. Chinese does not have spaces so I'm fine with that. —Detectivekenny; (Info) Preceding text certified by R. Xun as of 01:52, April 17, 2010 (UTC)
* Interestingly enough, even with relatively short words (they are usually 2-3 syllables, so not that short), and a limited number of roots, my translations tend to come out about as long as the English original. And I really try not to cut corners and make sure all meaning is properly translated. Adagio burner 15:10, April 19, 2010 (UTC)
* Idk, but somehow the shortness bothers me. It's probably personal. Vietnamese (or Yarphese] lol) doesn't bother me too much but maybe it was just that I grew up in phởland. —Detectivekenny; (Info) Preceding text certified by R. Xun as of 21:56, April 21, 2010 (UTC)
* Con: And like its relative this one also lack phonology in a proper manner
* This language is not about phonology. The sound system is kept simple on purpose and really needs no explanation. Adagio burner 15:10, April 19, 2010 (UTC)
* language without phonology is like a human being without organs The Emperor Zelos 22:32, April 19, 2010 (UTC)
* It has a phonology, but a very simple one, and it requires no explanations. Adagio burner 00:37, April 20, 2010 (UTC)
* All phonology needs explination if not it is rather dull The Emperor Zelos 16:11, April 21, 2010 (UTC)
* Of course it is dull; I didn't want to concentrate on that at all. I wanted a nicely sounding language with words that are not hard to pronounce, and I got that with a a very simple phonology and a reduced sound set. I don't understand why some people insist on treating every language like a kitchen sink. You don't need to throw everything in to make a good conlang! Adagio burner 16:47, April 21, 2010 (UTC)
* Doesnt need to be kitchen sink, you can have realistic phonologies without using kitchen sinks. but having it the same as language X plus Y sounds soley is a bad start for a conlang. Phonology is the very fundation of a conlang and it needs to be decent (not necciserly super good or super exotic) but not clearly identical to another language already existent (unless what you want is a cipher but this is the wrong wiki then). I think the tips zompist gave is the best one ive heard "add or remove entire classes of suonds" The Emperor Zelos 18:02, April 21, 2010 (UTC)
* So? Mis Hio does not have a phonology that's the same as any other language I know. It's kind of polynesian (no voiced consonants, small set of sounds), or rather a cross between polysenian and finnish -- a limited number of final consonants (n, m, s, r, t), a clear distinction between 'r' and 'l', some consonant clusters, and some doubling of consonants. Gee, I think I got a rather cool phonology there!Still, I do not see why it needs an extensive phonology section, since I do not use any exotic sounds and anyone can start reading immediately. So tell me again, why do I need to put anything else in there? Adagio burner 20:08, April 21, 2010 (UTC)
* Because "it got BDF etc" doesnt cut it, atleast show by IPA what each letter (combination) represent because B and B can be pronounced very differently The Emperor Zelos 21:11, April 21, 2010 (UTC)
* Ancient Qâêr
* Pro: The script is beautiful. I like the flow of the strokes. The language is quite vocalic. That makes me believe that it can be a very pleasant language to listen to. Look forward to listening to audio samples if there is any in the future. --Deslee 00:11, April 18, 2010 (UTC)
* Pro: Beautiful script, and it looks very usable. —Preceding signed comment added by TimeMaster (talk • contribs) 23:32, April 17, 2010 (UTC)
* Pro: Nice script, developing, useful, potential The Emperor Zelos 14:55, April 18, 2010 (UTC)
* Con: Nice script, but the language is too complex.--Koppadasao 15:03, April 18, 2010 (UTC)
* Hehe you haven't seen much then The Emperor Zelos 15:22, April 18, 2010 (UTC)
* What did you think was complex? Any input would be appreciated, though I think Hungarian and Finnish are more complex and they have many natural speakers! vii 02:19, April 19 2010 (UTC)
* Kind of my thought aswell, If he think Qaer is complicated he should see real languages such as native americas, geezes they couldnt learn the language properly until the early teens! XD The Emperor Zelos 16:21, April 18, 2010 (UTC)
* Con: There are some confusing points needing clarification. As it is pointed out in the article itself, it requires some fix up.Panglossa | Talk 14:13, April 27, 2010 (UTC)
* Those points being? vii 02:02, April 28, 2010 (UTC)
* Thiskish
* Con: Lacking sentence construction details The Emperor Zelos 12:59, April 18, 2010 (UTC)
* Con: Language doesn't seem to be ready yet. Panglossa | Talk 14:13, April 27, 2010 (UTC)
* What should I add to it, lol. —Preceding signed comment added by TimeMaster (talk • contribs) 10:54, April 28, 2010 (UTC)
* Logiano
* Con: Unneccisery use of complex symbols, confussing multiple concepts togather such as voice, aspect, infitive gerunds. Correlatives are esperanto like, unnatuurally regular. The Emperor Zelos 06:19, April 19, 2010 (UTC)
* Con The symbols re very complex and I dont belive them to be logical, example your symbol Ϸ for the H sound, i think this isnt smart as this, Ϸ is seen in many languages and known to have a completely different sound, you could have simply picked another symbol to represent your H sound and made it less comfusing, i think you have done this a few times in relation to your symbols. You also have confused mood, tense and spect with each other in your tables. I may not be a Linguistic master but i believe that Conditional "would see" is not in the tense category. You have some good basics but many problems cloud your conlang and your aim to make it logical has I think, very strongly backfired. No offence just trying to give critical criticism. vii 17:39, April 19, 2010
* He have confused in voice aswell with aspect which i find extremely wierd The Emperor Zelos 07:43, April 19, 2010 (UTC)
* I had to re-define the grammatical concepts to make it easier to group together. There is no English equivalent to the 'tense' group, so I picked the closest word I could find. Same with the 'aspects'. I tried to make the alphabet as least conflicting as possible. C for example has different sounds in many languages. But if you add the tail, it is only known as an 'S' sound. Also, it's difficult to find typeable symbols that aren't part of another language, which is why it looks complex. Those being said I greatly appreciate your criticism. --Razlem 10:58, April 19, 2010 (UTC)
* You should redefine things as it makes it look aweful and highly unproffesional, if your language do group them togather in some manner that is alright, english have several unrelated things done identicly, but in the layout they should be seperated into their proper classes
* Well, since everyone feels so strongly about this, I'll change it when I get the chance. --Razlem 11:10, April 19, 2010 (UTC)
* It is just for a good layout, if people see "active" in "aspect" they´ll go "WTF!?`" and move on to something more sane The Emperor Zelos 11:12, April 19, 2010 (UTC)
* another thing to keep in mind is this, when writting for normal people use rather letter combinations like "sg" "ng" etc rather than foreign symbols not all can easily type The Emperor Zelos 11:30, April 19, 2010 (UTC)
* Pro: Not just another cookie-cutter agglutinating-with-lots-of-cases language. This one tries to invent something new, and therefore is interesting. Adagio burner 15:10, April 19, 2010 (UTC)
* was that aimed at languages such as Umbrean or Ancient Qâêr? ^^ lol vii 08:46, April 20, 2010 (AEST)
* And more importantly, I dont see where that "new and interesting" is, to me it looks more like a mess for the moment with nothing out of the ordinary The Emperor Zelos 22:48, April 19, 2010 (UTC)
* Ok, I'll give you that, it's a bit messy at the moment. But the author is trying to break some new ground, and that's important to me. Adagio burner 00:37, April 20, 2010 (UTC)
* What is the "break new ground" thing? I honestly cant see it The Emperor Zelos 09:46, April 20, 2010 (UTC)
* But aren't we all trying to "break new ground" or create something new. There are just different ways to do it and clearly some of them dont work so well. vii 10:41, April 20, 2010 (AEST)
* So for future reference, what is the best way to organize the information? Razlem 01:06, April 20, 2010 (UTC)
* For starters not mixing concepts togather, as said it is fine that certain lignuistical features blends togather (I use it, english does it) but defining things randomly in fashions without sense makes it look aweful The Emperor Zelos 09:46, April 20, 2010 (UTC)
* Pro: Although it does have some non-fatal mistakes, I kinda like the language. I don't think the script is good, but it's not bad. It's pretty interesting too. Basically, I agree with Adagio burner. —Preceding signed comment added by TimeMaster (talk • contribs) 00:38, April 20, 2010 (UTC) If I could type the original script, I would in an instant ;) The characters you see are mostly for compatibility and convenience. Razlem 00:58, April 20, 2010 (UTC)
|
![[RDF Data]](/fct/images/sw-rdf-blue.png)