Re: the Maligned Art

Simon Kissane wrote:
> 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.
Not quite, I do think that conlangs are "real" (altho that is a tricky
word in English, since it can also mean "actually used") languages, I
just don't think that they're "the same" as natlangs.  I do think that
they can be equally complex (in the hands of a competent conlanger), but
that there's something missing.  Natlangs have a rich history, with
various associations between words, and so on, that are impossible to
replicate.  However, I'll acknowledge that it may be possible to create
a conlang that could pass for a natlang.  But "nat/con-langs" are more
important than most other possible distinctions, because they are
legitimate, they have different origins, and different qualities, and
are a more real distinction than age, which has lots of grey ares
between child and adult.  To the best of my knowledge, with the possible
exceptions of Esperanto and other IAL's, there are no such grey areas
with languages.  However, whether it's an *important* distinction,
rather than a real one, is a judgement call, so both of us are right, in
our own value systems.

--
"It has occured to me more than once that holy boredom is good and
sufficient reason for the invention of free will." - "Lord Leto II"
(Dune Chronicles, by Frank Herbert)
http://members.tripod.com/~Nik_Taylor/X-Files/
ICQ #: 18656696
AOL screen-name: NikTailor