|From:||Jim Grossmann <jimg@...>|
|Date:||Tuesday, March 23, 1999, 8:03|
Gosh, I couldn't help overhearing. Let my add my own comments, which are
more cynical than yours, but nonetheless supportive. To wit:
I have never heard a criticism of conlanging that couldn't also serve as a
damning indictment of gardening. More specifically: Growing a
rhodedendron bush in your back yard garden does not qualify as botanical
research, and does not produce foodstuffs, plant oils, and fibers necessary
to save millions from poverty. Consequently, it is a useless activity that
no sane person would engage in. When you grow something, there ought to be
a practical use for it. What do you DO with a rhodedendron bush after
you've grown it? What? You show it to people? Since your rhodedendron
bush is not on national television, one can only assume that you're showing
it to a few souls who have proven their freakish eccentricity through their
interest in your irredeemably impractical horticultural project. etc. etc.
If nobody minds, I'd like to solicit some remarks about how conlanging
compares with other crafts. Guess I'll start the ball rolling with ...
My reference grammar costs less, uses less fuel, and makes a lot less noise
than the small herd of motorcycles my friend is trying to restore.
>> spot on, irina. i am not trying to change the world by making alanguage. what
>> is changing is my own cognitive processes, dealing with, then reflectingon,
>> visual language. but my agenda ends at home.
>Thinking some more about this I realize that making something,
>whatever it is and for whatever reason, *always* changes the world:
>if I bake a loaf of bread, there's a difference between the world
>without it and the world with it. If you make something as complex as
>a language, the difference is bigger, even if you didn't set out to
>make that difference, and even if the difference doesn't affect much
>The world without Brythenig or Teonaht or Valdyan would be a much