Talk:William Fulco
Appearance
This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Given that Aramaic is a real language
[edit]How is what Fr Fulco did any different from translating Asterix into Latin? Not a constructed language, but a translation. --Richardson mcphillips (talk) 01:29, 18 April 2012 (UTC)
- The Aramaic of Jesus is not well attested. Fulco had to reconstruct, or if you will restore it. However I object to describing him as a conlanger. This is not accurate. He restored a lost language, he didn't produce one from scratch. His work is not different (although the methods are different) from someone who works in the reconstruction of PIE, or Proto-Germanic, or Proto-Romance, etc. To describe him as a conlanger is a joke from people who absolutely do not understand what he did. Signed: Basemetal (write to me here) 12:32, 3 February 2013 (UTC)
I object to describing Fulco as a conlanger. This is not accurate. He restored a lost language, he didn't produce one from scratch. His work is not different (although the methods are different) from someone who works in the reconstruction of PIE, or Proto-Germanic, or Proto-Romance, etc. To describe him as a conlanger is a joke from people who absolutely do not understand what he did. Signed: Basemetal (write to me here) 12:32, 3 February 2013 (UTC)
Categories:
- Start-Class biography articles
- WikiProject Biography articles
- Start-Class constructed language articles
- Low-importance constructed language articles
- WikiProject constructed language articles
- Start-Class Catholicism articles
- Low-importance Catholicism articles
- WikiProject Catholicism articles
- Start-Class California articles
- Low-importance California articles
- WikiProject California articles