Am 19.01.02, Chris Palmer yscrifef:
> > Following this logic, universities should never teach courses in
> > modern dance - they're made up and lack the "depth" of actual
> > (natural, or folk) dances.
>
> Dance is not purported to be a natural science, so your analogy is bad.
It's an _art_, studied by a science. I never said conlanging was
a science.
> Even as an art, conlanging is not ready for establishment in academia.
That's debatable.
> The aesthetics are so personal and so inaccessible to a general audience
> that it would be very hard, if not impossible, to formulate them into a
> tradition that could be taught and analyzed in the way other art forms
> are now.
Sounds familiar. Sounds a lot like all those splotches and
squares that make up modern painting. Sounds pretty inaccessible
to me.
> Furthermore, the recognized canon is so miniscule as to be
> nonexistent (Tolkien's languages, Klingon, Esperanto and
> loglan/lojban--the latter two aren't even specifically artlangs
> (although lojban is especially beautiful)).
Every art starts with an opus listing of one.
> I love conlangs and conlanging, but it will always be "the secret vice".
Perhaps. I don't like it to go undefended, though.
> Chris
Padraic.
--
Gwerez dah, chee gwaz vaz, ha leal.