Re: the Maligned Art

I suppose this is a bit of a pointless philosophical debate, but I like
pointless philosophical debates, so I shall respond anyway... Sorry...

Sally Caves wrote:
>
> On Sun, 8 Nov 1998, Simon Kissane wrote:
>
> > Sally Caves wrote:
> > [snipped]
> > > Well there you have it, Bob.  People say "my language" or "my
> > > city," and everybody knows that it's a fictional language or a
> > > fictional city.
> > > On   this   listserv.
>
> > Fictional cities, yes, but fictional languages? Because languages
> > aren't physical objects,
>
> Their words impact our ears as waves on air; our eyes take in their
> shapes on the page.  Our mouths are busy making noises with them.
> Certainly they are physical.
Is the language the same as the noises? "My name is Simon" is not a
langauge, it is a series of wrriten symbols/sound waves/computer bits...
language is rather what gives these symbols meaning, it is beyond its
physical representation.

(Exactly what it is, I don't know.)

> We live in cities the way we live in languages.  Cities have
> different emotional connotations to different people, they "mean"
> different things to the people who inhabit them.   So do languages.
With which I agree... but as James Hopkins pointed out, just like
hammers, a language is still a language even if it has not yet been
lived in yet.

> > you can't make a fictional/non-fictional distinction.
> > All the languages here are just as real as English or French or
> > Japanese.
> > You could say they have no or very few speakers, but then some
> > "real" languages have no or very few speakers either. (How many
> > people speak Proto-Indo-European?)
>
> PIE is not a "real" language, Simon.  It's a reconstructed language, a
> hypothesis.  Hence the "asterisk" in front of all its invocations.
Which is irrevelant. The point is that a language is still a language
even if it has no speakers, as James Hopkins pointed out.

> > You might say they have been invented, but all languages have been
> > invented. Most people in their life conlang a word or two, and the
> > only difference between conlangs and "real" languages is that
> > rather than a large group of people inventing a word or two each,
> > you have one person inventing a whole language...
> >
> > I can't see any distinction between conlangs and "real" languages,
> > they are the same thing.
> >
> > Simon Kissane
> >
>
> Simon... it doesn't seem that you have been following this particular
> thread very well (which started as "Lunatic Again)."
> If you had been, then you would take up your gripe here with my
> opponent, who doesn't think that applying the word "language" to an
> invented language is allowable in all cases.  I DO.
I admit I have skipped most of it, yes, but I do know what you're
opponent is saying, and what you are saying. Personally, I have no
interest in arguing with auxlangers. I have seen enough to realise it
goes nowhere.

> But I'm not under the impression that there is NO
> distinction between conlangs and "real" languages--the very crucial
> one being that [snipped] ...and from other languages and not _a
> priori_.
But to have each language develop from a previous one would require
either an infinite chain of languages or an initial a priori language.

> I mean take a look at it: what we're doing here is very unnatural,
> whether we're auxlanging, loglanging, or artlanging.  Natural
> languages just don't subsist in this way; the wheel isn't reinvented
> for every newborn infant--he is born into a linguistic *tradition* in
> most cases.
Reminds me of a principle in chemistry... oxygen is the same no matter
what reaction pathway you used to generate it... same with languages.
There is no difference between an invented and a real language, because
the final result is indistinguishable. How do we know the so called
"natural" languages weren't invented by a conlanger? Of course, it is
highly unlikely, but it is still a possibility, because we simply don't
know for sure how they came about.

Which reminds me, where does Damin fit in your classification? Invented
or natural? We don't know for certain which...

> As for the "fiction"  part, there are quite a number of invented
> languages, such as mine, for instance, meant to flesh out or accompany
> fiction.  The issue: are we making languages?  Yes.  Must the word
> "language" only refer to "natural language"?  Or a conceivably spoken
> language?  No.
Which is the issue you were discusssing, yes... I agree with you. But I
am bringing up a seperate issue, which isn't exactly related here.

> It's the term "language" that is in dispute here (whether it can be an
> umbrella term under which natural and invented languages can fall),
> and in this respect I am arguing for YOUR sense of a more
> all-encompassing distinction, along with David Durand and other
> members who've spoken up.
>
> Please don't snip explanatory material wherein you distort or simplify
> my argument; please know who is arguing what about what; and please
> read and absorb the whole thread.  It has its roots in the Lunatic
> Again thread.
I am not distorting what you said. You said your so-called "invented"
languages are languages as well. I agree. But I reject your distinction
between "invented" and "natural", because it is pointless, useless and
completely unworkable in cases where we don't know anything about how
the language was developed.

There also might be an implication in some people's mind that because
they are "invented" they are not "real" languages. This is similar
(but not exactly the same as) Lojban Bob's view.

Please... I don't want to be involved in a heated discussion... I was
just pointing out some problems I see with what you said... please
don't be so argumentative...

> Cordially, Sally
Simon Kissane