On Mon, 10 Dec 2007 03:27:05 -0500, Anonymous
<anyone@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:
>
>A month later this Yahoo group for "worldlangers" only has 10 members
>and it's mostly the same folks who are active in the Auxlang list. How
>many Yahoo groups does the world really need, anyway. I wonder if we
>spread ourselves too thin by creating too many hyper-specialized
>forums.
I don't know what the scope of "worldlangs" is ... let's see ... seems
to be a run of the mill general interest auxlang group. I can't see
from its description how this group is "hyper-specialised"; but I can
certainly see how several parallel groups could be problematic. Split
traffic, crossposting, missed posts, missed discussions. Can become
quite messy, but with only 10 members, is this much of a problem?
There are a lot of conlang oriented groups as well, but that are
actually specialised (I can think of Celtic, Germanic, Romance and I
think West Asian off hand -- there are a couple others, I think). Many
people are members of both these specialised groups as well as the
Conlang list. The specialised groups have their use, like when the
discussion of how a Romance conlang does its definite articles. All of
those "cestes" and "questai" and "illumpsimets" are not really of
general interest to the larger group. Also, specialised questions of
vocabulary generation or syntax are well handled by these subgroups.
Of the ones I monitor, the Romance one is about the most active -- but
that's only because a lot of folks are into constructed Romance
languages. Fewer seem to be interested in Germanic and the like.
There are general interst conlang groups that parallel Conlang. I
would think of them as roughly in the same boat as "worldlangs".
Padraic
--
Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com
|
