• Chathan
    • Con: It attempts being a germanic language but lacks gender which all germanic languages do have (english being exception) without proper justification, and being dutch/german closest it would need to have 3 genders like both of them do, agreement and all. a few minor here and there I think it can have lots of potensial for its purpose The Emperor Zelos 09:53, May 12, 2010 (UTC)
    • Con. I give you Kudos for your work on this language, however not only does it lack gender which all Germanic languages have, but I belive, being a speaker of 3 Germanic languages, that, like most other Germanic conlangs, it lacks the individualism nd uniques to be called a standalone language, or deserving to be featured. Not only is it easily understandle to people who speak natural Germanic languages (what is the point of creating a conlang that is hardly different to a family of living natlangs?) but it also lacks features typical to Germanic languages which all the germanic languages you seem to have taken inspiration from, possess. Therefore on these grounds I give you a con. No offence. vii 09:41, 14 May, 2010
    • Pro: Aside from its lack of genders, I believe that Chathan beautifully executes its purpose of being a Germanic language. It has a focus on the western branch, but also has its share of North Germanic words. I say Pro. N00b1shm4n 23:15, May 14, 2010 (UTC)
      • vii, concerning its similarity with a natlang family, it's called a zonal constructed language: Isaac Bonewits 18:47, May 14, 2010 (UTC)
    • Con: This is a dialect of Dutch and German, not a conlang.--Koppa Dasao frelangi kazelangin na 13:53, May 19, 2010 (UTC)
      • If this is a dialect of both Dutch and German, which doesn't really make sense, than Danish, Swedish, and Norwegian are definitely all the same language. Isaac Bonewits 20:35, May 19, 2010 (UTC)
        • In some regards they are.--Koppa Dasao frelangi kazelangin na 20:40, May 19, 2010 (UTC)
        • I agree, I can speak German, and can understand almost everything in Dutch. I also have a lot of danish, swedish, and norwegian friends who can all talk to each other in their own languages, which technically, because they can do this, doesnt really make danish and swedish, or german and dutch, completely different languages due to them being mutually understandable. It would be like saying London English is a different language to American or Australian English, which we all know is rubbish. I think you have done some very good work here, but it isn't a proper conlang. vii 15:01, 20 May 2010 (UTC)
      • I'm not going to vote pro or con, for what I will say will count as both. However, I don't necessarily see it as a dialect. I can understand about 80% Portuguese and about 60% Italian, and I don't even speak it. Does that make Portuguese and Italian dialects of Spanish? No, I think this is a moderate representation of another language family. However, I do feel it doesn't bring enough to the table to be its own language. Tweak things up a bit, you know, give it something that will make it characteristic of itself. LctrGzmn 17:36, May 23, 2010 (UTC)
    • Pro The language does reminds one of the germanic family, being a speaker myself of this I find myself understanding much by default - this in itself does not disqualify it in my eyes as a proper conlang, but only adds merit to it as a possible member of the germanic natlang family. Not having gender is something I find quite refreshing seeing as my own native language - Swedish has compounded the three original genders into two and I am noticing amongst the younger portion of the population a slight ten this is dency to fail at distinguishing the two remanining genders. Coupled with immigration diluting this knowledge even more it is most certainly a path I see possible - that of the elimination of grammatical gender. It is a natural development I believe caused by the influence of the english language. I do not see why it should have to have three genders just because it claims relationship with dutch and german - behold the Frisian language, relative of English which has maintained its gender system. As a response to vii's complaint about how it does not have a "point" if it's too similar to a natlang family - the point is in the eyes of the maker, if the maker wishes to have it so, so be it. Personally, I find that objection null. Tbh. Back to the subject at hand, if one considers swedish, norwegian and danish the same language one could claim the same of the whole germanic family claiming intelligibleness the sole criterion, one could "jump" between adjacent dialects going from village to village... Just my two cents. :) ~ Billy J.B(talk) 01:28, May 25, 2010 (UTC)
    • Pro: It is a "convincing" language, really looks like some "lost" germanic language that developed in isolation from other languages. Panglossa | Talk 20:20, May 26, 2010 (UTC)
    • Pro: Read the above two comments. —Preceding signed comment added by TimeMaster (talkcontribs) 21:36, May 26, 2010 (UTC)
    • Warning! Recently two accounts registered doing nothing but vote here hence i suspect someone is attempting to cheat in favor of Cathan which should be disqualified then The Emperor Zelos 08:19, May 28, 2010 (UTC)
      • Re:Warning Checked their IP? Disqualifying an entry just because someone attempted to cheat by voting twice is very dangerous. Since a competitor could just fake tons of votes that would easily be discovered, thereby removing the competitor... ~ Billy J.B(talk) 11:20, May 28, 2010 (UTC)
  • Adwan
    • Pro: so far to what i have seen (I will check more later) i think it got alot of nice unusual features and more, doesnt seem KSLing. Only drawback is usage of characters most cant type on their keyboard The Emperor Zelos 13:11, May 12, 2010 (UTC)
    • Con: Adwan is not easily learned due to the fact that it is sparse on cognates with natlangs. I also dislike how certain characters aren't easily typed with a keyboard. I do like the fact that Adwan can be written in Cyrillic. N00b1shm4n 23:15, May 14, 2010 (UTC)
      • Also, the sparse on cognates happens a lot between languages that aren't related. In Spanish, "pes" means "fish", while in Czech, it means "dog". Even with languages that are some-what related, such as "mensa" in latin, which means "table", means "feminine idiot" in Spanish. Just sayin'... LctrGzmn 19:57, May 16, 2010 (UTC)
    • Didn't the guy resign? —Detectivekenny; (Info) Preceding text certified by R. Xun as of 01:20, May 15, 2010 (UTC)
    • No I didn't. Idk why my entry was erased.. And to the characters issue: Yes well, what else do you expect from a phonemic language? LctrGzmn 06:03, May 16, 2010 (UTC)
    • Pro: one of the most sound and developed languages on this site. Adagio burner 07:35, May 16, 2010 (UTC)
    • Pro: A well developed language, with a solid script. However, it seems to be written from an English or at least non-objective standpoint (especially in the listings of things that 'are not' allophones).PsykieKILLA 08:37, May 28, 2010 (UTC)
  • Sukika
    • Pro: There is lots of innovation here, the langage sounds, looks and feels as the languages it's been influenced by. Adagio burner 07:35, May 16, 2010 (UTC)
    • Con: The length of the roots and morphemes make the language somewhat inefficient and extremely difficult to learn. Plus on the grammar though. —Detectivekenny; (Info) Preceding text certified by R. Xun as of 14:52, May 16, 2010 (UTC)
    • Con The language seems messy and unreadable with all those repeats of letters. --Koppa Dasao frelangi kazelangin na 13:53, May 19, 2010 (UTC)
    • Pro: I have to fully agree with adagio burner, whilst perusing it most certainly reminded me of the Eskimo-Aleut languages and certain features of the Finno-Permic family. It appears to succeed in doing that which it sets out to do. I do agree that it might seem slightly messy to a person that speaks some sort of *IE but if you take a look at the aleut-eskimo/finnish languages it seems quite fine. Compare "Nunatsiavummiutut" with "ifkoddumbaddur"... Also, I do quite enjoy the heavy use of g, w, p and d. Reminds me of a good ol' celtic languages (c.f." ..ewydd ...fwriedid...gael,.. ddyrchafu...")
    • Con: The presence of an overarching pronounciation seems unlikely for a human language. It would be strange for a group to decide on speaking in a voice which is actually more difficult and painful to do than a normal speaking voice for their entire language. Perhaps using the rough voice as a form of stress on some words or cases would work, but not all the time. (Excuse my idiocy, I was not logged in at the time).PsykieKILLA 08:31, May 28, 2010 (UTC)
  • Quai'op
    • Pro: Good project, interesting language. BUT, the page is somewhat confusing, needs some improvement and more examples.Panglossa | Talk 20:20, May 26, 2010 (UTC)
  • Savazano
    • Pro: Nice sounding language, clear sentence structure without being trivial or too simplistic. Panglossa | Talk 20:20, May 26, 2010 (UTC)
  • Delang
    • Con: Good project, deserves our attention, but IMO the "outsorcing" for vocabulary building doesn't work here, the mixing of elements of various languages gives a confusing result. Panglossa | Talk 20:20, May 26, 2010 (UTC)

Ad blocker interference detected!

Wikia is a free-to-use site that makes money from advertising. We have a modified experience for viewers using ad blockers

Wikia is not accessible if you’ve made further modifications. Remove the custom ad blocker rule(s) and the page will load as expected.