u/addroddyn

I understand that if Focurc is indeed your first language, this must be frustrating. I would like to preface this and I guess postface my last post with saying that if and when I see an official description of this language somewhere else than your own page and I see a recording of a conversation of it, I will gladly admit I was wrong and I will offer my deepest apologies.

However, you must understand that in this day and age, the word of an individual, especially an anonymous individual, especially on the Internet is just not enough. And currently, that's all you have. You must also understand that your story, while possible, is extremely unlikely, and your posts are just vague enough to raise suspicion. You don't give names, exact locations, there are no recordings except yours, there are no texts except yours. You claim that you are in contact with a linguist to publish, but that is also conveniently hard to verify - I checked the site, there is no mention of this anywhere. To which you can reply that it's because it's early in development - which, again, can be true, but it can also be a convenient cover story.

Again, I applaud your resolve to protect Focurc, whether it is a conlang or not. With all due respect, I personally believe it is.

I am in the skeptic camp. I have two reasons, basically.

1. The only source on this language is this person. Even the site linked in this thread is made by him. I refuse to believe that nobody spoke up about this language before him, especially in Scotland, the middle of the UK, in the EU. The are huge linguistic departments in that country - I find it highly implausible that a language would have been overlooked. Just as you, I don't buy the "it's been opressed" narrative. Not there. Teachers might say that, but on an Academic level, someone would have mentioned it. Even if it was oppressed, someone would have mentioned how it is an undesirable language.

2. The language is not found in any online language database, such as Ethnologue, or UNESCO's database. It's not the Wiki, not this Guardian article I found - nothing. Again, it's a single person on the entire internet who has even heard of this language. It doesn't even appear as a dialect anywhere.

Now don't get me wrong, it's a very impressive conlang, and he's a valiant defender of it, so kudos to him. But it's a conlang.

You are correct in saying that rules are made after usage, not vice versa. You are also correct in saying that even then, these are rules are not set in stone and they can and do change. That said, they are still rules, and there's a difference between pushing them and breaking them - especially when it comes to dead languages like Latin that no longer change since they are not spoken.

Judging by your other comments, there has been a miscommunication. I was talking about Latin, in which "Anno Domini [insert year]" is the correct form. In English, I don't think there's a rule per se, more of a convention - so yes, you are correct. One could put AD after the number, we just don't really do it.

Both, honestly.