[LCC] Choosing language-specific talks
|From:||Sai Emrys <sai@...>|
|Date:||Friday, December 22, 2006, 14:50|
I have a concern that I don't really have a solution worked out for,
and would like your feedback on.
For the LCC1 I had a policy that only meta-conlinguistic talks would
be allowed - i.e. not talks that are just about a particular language;
they could *use* a particular language, but only as case examples of
some larger point being made. Cf. Matt Pearson's talk, in which he
used his own language (Tokana) as a case study of the topic of his
talk (case, aspect & argument structure).
For the LCC2 and future, based on previous feedback and comments I
received, I'm considering revising this. Mostly this is because of a
call for more diverse content. Partially this will be satisfied by
having, for example, workshops and panel / audience discussions.
But specifically, the question here is: How can we relax that policy -
and have talks or workshops that are just about a specific language -
and still stay true to our goals?
There is no shortage of language authors interested in presenting
about their language - especially in the auxlang community (to put it
How are we to choose and filter presentations so that they are still
interesting, notable, useful, & respectful, without showing favoritism
to e.g. my own (or other LCS Board members') personal biases? What
conlangs - and what types of presentations - deserve 15 minutes of
stage time? What deserves an hour?
(One tertium quid of course is: "none do, you should keep the 'it has
to be used just as a case study' policy" - if so please explain why &
how to address the concern for new content.)
My goal for the LCC is to provide a forum for rich, diverse,
interesting, and useful talks, workshops, and conversations. I think
the LCC1 managed this quite well, and I was very pleased by the
feedback received from many conlangers about how much it enriched
their conlanging and led them to think about things they hadn't
before. I want that to continue and expand, as well as providing some
more varied content (i.e. not *just* the really dense stuff ;-)).
Your input is appreciated.