Theiling Online    Sitemap    Conlang Mailing List HQ   

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 considerable interest!
> 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.
> Chris
Padraic. -- Gwerez dah, chee gwaz vaz, ha leal.


Clint Jackson Baker <litrex1@...>
Chris Palmer <cecibean@...>