Re: Calling all Conlangers!
|From:||Chris Palmer <cecibean@...>|
|Date:||Sunday, January 20, 2002, 4:00|
On 19 Jan, Padraic Brown wrote:
> > However as Klingon is a made up language of recent origin it lacks
> > the depth of Apache, thus should not be anything other than a
> > linguistic toy, not really something that a serious institution
> > should be handing out credits for as an actual language.
> _I_ took it as a slight that the art inherent in conlanging is not
> worthy of serious study. Or by inferencece that the products thereof
> are somehow less artistic than modern art or music (neither of which,
> by the way, I can stand; but I do not deny the artistry inherent!).
It sounds to me like the person doesn't want it to be treated,
credit-wise, as a natural language (fulfilling e.g. a foreign language
requirement for an undergraduate degree) or as an object of linguistic
(scientific) study. If my interpretation is correct, I think it's hard
to dispute the matter.
It's equally hard, and I don't see anybody trying, to dispute the
artistry in conlanging.
Chris www.nodewarrior.org/chris firstname.lastname@example.org