Re: Calling all Conlangers!
|From:||Padraic Brown <agricola@...>|
|Date:||Sunday, January 20, 2002, 4:20|
Am 19.01.02, Chris Palmer yscrifef:
> > > 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.
> 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)
Possibly, but that's not what he said. And for what it's worth,
Esperanto is also taught at some universities.
> or as an object of linguistic (scientific) study.
It is most certainly a linguistic phenomenon! How can a linguist
_not_ be fascinated by hundreds or thousands of "normal" people
actively studying and using a new language? Were I a linguist (or
better still, an anthropologist), I'd be in there looking on with
> If my interpretation is correct, I think it's hard
> to dispute the matter.
It would be _indisputable_, since Klingon isn't a _natural_
language. Note that the matter isn't over whether Klingon
is natural or artificial - but that it "lacks depth". Hell,
there are loads of natural languages you can study that
"lack depth" (Gaulish, Hittite, et.c.)
> It's equally hard, and I don't see anybody trying, to dispute the
> artistry in conlanging.
If it's said to "lack depth" and be somehow unworthy of
academic interest as an artistic artefact or that the art
behind it is dismissed, then it would seem that the artistry
in conlanging is disputed. 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.
Gwerez dah, chee gwaz vaz, ha leal.