Re: the Maligned Art

Nik Taylor wrote:
[snipped]
> However, this looks like a case where we're approaching this with
> totally different perspectives to start with, different value
> systems, so that we'll never get anywhere.  Shall we agree to
I think we do differ seriously on the fundamentals. I believe the
categories you use to divide up reality reflect your views about
what you are categorising. People make male/female, adult/child,
natural/artificial distinctions because of their beliefs about what
they are distinguishing. We don't have special words for things that
do and don't weigh 35.762g, nor do we have special words for things
that are older and younger than 31 and 6 months. Why? Because there
is no real practical difference between things that weigh 35.762g
and things that don't.

When you choose to make invented/natural a distinction in languages
of note (and it seems to be the primary one I am hearing mention
of at the moment), you are not merely pointing out a distinction,
but saying "This distinction is one we should take note of", you
are implying something about the distinction.

This distinction that you are making implies that (at least to me,
and probably to others, though I know you will deny this) that
conlangs are somehow "less than real" languages, only
half-languages. This seems supported by your views that a conlang
could never obtain the complexity of a natlang, that it never could
be as complex (and therefore, as I interpret you saying, never be
as beautiful) as a natural language.

But I suppose, as you say, we'll never get anywhere. So yes, I will
"agree to disagree".

Simon Kissane