Ahh, no I did not.

Also I guess I'm weird then. YAAAY

Found some stuff on Thieves' Cant.

http://www.pascalbonenfant.com/18c/cant/
https://archive.org/stream/newdictionaryoft00begeuoft#page/n11/mode/2up

May I maintain some mythology articles?

It would be quite silly to have a real-world mythology section here because, as has been noted, it wouldn't provide any advantage over, say, just going to Wikipedia or going to a real academic source.

The goal of having reference language stuff here is just to provide dictionary coverage for developing derived conlangs via SCA; I've only really let the project get as inclusive as it is because it provides a novel and useful conlanging perspective on the subject matter in some cases (e.g. the awesome German documentation written up by Querubín and Jípí) where compact tables would otherwise be hard to find or endemic, awkward-to-learn terminology might be preferred in the general literature.

You obviously have a lot of ideas for developing your own creations, though—why not focus your energy on that?

Could we create a version of Cev's Language Books that Won't Dick You Around that allows multiple contributers to edit a master list of all sorts of language learning resources?

Totes. I've created it as a normal page within the Natlangs collection and linked it in the header. If you want to restrict editing to a subset of the current Reference editors, elect a moderator for it and I'll make a dedicated user group. The page is here.

If nobody objects, I'm more than happy to mod it.

I object because you have ideas.

i object because no mods no masters

...I think I may start moving these blatantly silly thread derailments into Hurq's thread.

EDIT: it turns out the 'revolutionary derailment' thread is a better dumping ground, since Hurq's thread has some coherent conversation.

You really should; I feel bad about even getting involved, though I'm fairly proud of my little composition. But I  think Pthag is clearly to blame.

Okay... going back to the somewhat serious conversation, how does everyone actually feel about this? Sorry it's been like a month since I've been really involved in the community; my life's been a nightmare. (But we can talk about that some other time.)

I forget what we were talking about, but I still categorically object to dhok modding just about anything.

P.S. Wait, was it the language textbook reference? I add to my categorical objection the specific objection that dhok's ideas on how that should be have so far run counter to those of everyone else he has talked to on the subject, at least in my presence.

I claim that dhok is already moderator of the world. thus, reapponting him would be redundant

take ur dialectical materialism & shove it up ur

A few remarks:
1) For presentation purposes, I think the auxiliary verbs deserve a separate treatment, as their stem vowels differ between present sg. and pl. (or at least this should be mentioned), e.g.:
können - sg. kann, pl. können
2) Typos:
In the present tense form for bieten, the final "t" is missing: bietet
In the present tense form for fangen, the "g" is missing: fängt
The past forms for bleichen are blich, geblichen (without t)

3) The following verbs are missing:
wiegen "weigh" (like fliegen),
sprießen "sprout" (like fließen),
spinnen "spin" (like rinnen),
winden "wind", dringen "penetrate, insist" (like finden)
werben "woo, recruit, advertise" (like bergen)
verzeihen "forgive" (like bleiben) - the simplex zeihen "accuse" exists, but is obsolescent
weichen "give way, subside", verschleißen "wear down" (like beißen)

Separate type /ɛː/ /iː/ /oː/ /oː/
gebären, gebiert, gebar, geboren "bear (a child)"

4) Are you sure about the following forms:
a) The weak forms of bersten - I've never encountered them and Duden doesn't know them as well.
b) The perfect participle of  dürfen is gedurft (all modal auxiliaries are ablauting weak verbs).

5) If you want to consequently give weak alternatives where they exist, include the following:
schaffen, schaffte, geschafft "manage"   
scheinen, scheinte, gescheint "shine" - in the presciptive standard, "seem" is strong and "shine" is weak, but people also fequently use the strong forms for "shine"
bleichen, bleichte, gebleicht "bleach" - the transitive verb is always weak, for the intransitive verb "to pale" the strong forms are obsoleescent, they are alive only in the prefixed verbs erbleichen, verbleichen; ausbleichen nowadays normally uses the weak forms, but the strong participle ausgeblichen is still in use, especially as adjective.

Two native speakers looked at my table and offered corrections (cedh, guitarplayer), and yet there was more! Thanks for your post, I took it into account.

quoting hwhatting, Disinterest, Almaty, Kazakhstan:

A few remarks:
1) For presentation purposes, I think the auxiliary verbs deserve a separate treatment, as their stem vowels differ between present sg. and pl. (or at least this should be mentioned), e.g.:
können - sg. kann, pl. können

I still do not think this is too important for the table, as long as the different vowel is listed. The plural present forms always take the vowel of the infinitive anyway.

2) Typos:
In the present tense form for bieten, the final "t" is missing: bietet
In the present tense form for fangen, the "g" is missing: fängt
The past forms for bleichen are blich, geblichen (without t)

Typos corrected.

3) The following verbs are missing:
wiegen "weigh" (like fliegen),
sprießen "sprout" (like fließen),
spinnen "spin" (like rinnen),
winden "wind", dringen "penetrate, insist" (like finden)
werben "woo, recruit, advertise" (like bergen)
verzeihen "forgive" (like bleiben) - the simplex zeihen "accuse" exists, but is obsolescent
weichen "give way, subside", verschleißen "wear down" (like beißen)

Separate type /ɛː/ /iː/ /oː/ /oː/
gebären, gebiert, gebar, geboren "bear (a child)"

Verbs added.

4) Are you sure about the following forms:
a) The weak forms of bersten - I've never encountered them and Duden doesn't know them as well.

Alright, eliminated them.

b) The perfect participle of  dürfen is gedurft (all modal auxiliaries are ablauting weak verbs).

Corrected.

5) If you want to consequently give weak alternatives where they exist, include the following:
schaffen, schaffte, geschafft "manage"   
scheinen, scheinte, gescheint "shine" - in the presciptive standard, "seem" is strong and "shine" is weak, but people also fequently use the strong forms for "shine"
bleichen, bleichte, gebleicht "bleach" - the transitive verb is always weak, for the intransitive verb "to pale" the strong forms are obsoleescent, they are alive only in the prefixed verbs erbleichen, verbleichen; ausbleichen nowadays normally uses the weak forms, but the strong participle ausgeblichen is still in use, especially as adjective.

Alternatives added.

Great! Thanks for doing this!
And life's like this, there will probably many more Germans poring over this and pointing out typos and mistakes the previous onlookers overlooked. We Germans are a bunch of nitpickers. ;-)

I am terribly sorry for this intrusion into our collective tomb, but I've started working on a short introduction to discourse pragmatics ând structure for conlangers, on the grounds of... Well, as far as I can tell, there isn't even such a thing for academic linguists, so I figured I might as well write at least a small sketch for personal reference.

I will put it in the Annie reference as a primary online access point, so you are all cordially invited to contribute.

quoting Hallow XIII, 巴塞尔之子:

collective tomb

I'm bloody well alive you coward