Zompist Bboard Again

I think Zompist has it down. To an English speaker, morphological analysis doesn't seem terribly interesting. What makes Chinese interesting to me is its writing system, which pairs especially well with an analytic language. Without that it might not appeal to me much. Many English-speaking conlange...

Essentially, my conlangs have used IE as a grammatical framework to which I add my own a priori vocabulary. To create the grammar, I've sourced mainly from PIE reconstructions (such as Sihler and Ringe), but also taken some inspiration from Sanskrit, Greek, Hittite, and Latin. A true IE a posteriori...

I thought SAE stood for “Standard American English”. I’ll be.

Anyway, I agree with Salmoneus. Though after reading this thread I am afraid to post my IE-based conlang here.

Don't get bogged down in complex phonology and fail to progress any further into your language. Phonology can be a roadblock. But it's not the be-all end-all.

Unfortunately I see that sometimes.

For me, the most difficult aspect of conlanging is creating a coherent and realistic lexicon. The natural derivational process that a language undergoes over time is difficult to replicate. One can create a phonological inventory or a morphological system, but creating new words is an ongoing proces...

I dropped /θ/ from my main conlang (and replaced all instances of it with /f/) because it would've been the only sound that I could not conventionally represent with a single character (diacritic or not) of the Latin alphabet. I was writing it <th> and I didn't want any digraphs.