Talk:William Fulco

Given that Aramaic is a real language
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)

Describing Fulco as a conlanger is absolutely not accurate
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)