Re: Invented (was and still is "lunatic")
|From:||Raymond A. Brown <raybrown@...>|
|Date:||Sunday, November 15, 1998, 20:52|
At 10:42 am -0500 15/11/98, Logical Language Group wrote:
>I think if you look at my limited posts over the last few years before this
>thread, you will find that in general I take this approach. But I just
>got tired of those who would ban "completed" conlangs from the list to
>auxlang (even if they aren't auxlangs).
I guess I must have been reading this list for four or five years now. I
don't ever recall reading _anyone_ who has ever suggested banning completed
conlangs from this list, especially non-IALs. Can you cite one example to
back up this surprising claim?
Indeed, is any usable language ever completed?
The only exclusion that's ever been suggested to my knowledge is that of
"completed" conIALs when, and *ONLY* when, discussing their worthiness or
otherwise as _auxiliary languages_. And that is because, as you well know,
there is a list for that called Auxlang. And that was set up, as you also
well know, because many other conlangers find the questions _specific_ to
IALs tend, whether we like it or not, to generate great passion which at
best is unteresting to very many conlangers and at worst causes great
offense and makes people leave the list.
To keep everybody happy, the Auxlang list was set up several years back.
It seems to work. Are you suggesting that Auxlang be discontinued &
everything discussed on Conlang?
I'm not aware that discussion here cannot include "completed" conIALs when
we are discussing them as _constructed_ languages or in discussing some
point from a purely linguistic point of view. The trouble is that so many
of us have discovered by bitter (and I mean bitter) experience that even
this is liable to bring flames upon oneself from some supporter of the
particular conIAL who thinks that any discussion means you are per se
>If one kind of exclusion can
>practiced on this list, a kind that has little basis in the word meanings,
Er - Auxlang? Isn't that short for 'Auxiliary language'? Why hasn't that
any basis in the word of meanings?
>There is something to be said for "if you can't say anything good, then
>don't say anything at all". But I would like to think that mature people
>make intellectual criticisms without giving or taking personal offense.
So would I. And I sincerely hope we can on this list. Indeed, one complaint
I might make is that when I've asked for comments on some ideas I've had
for 'briefscript', the replies have been too tame ;) But I know from
experience that in the quagmire of the conIAL world it's almost impossible
to say anything without someone, somewhere taking offense.
>And I have never intended to attack anyone personally even when I do criticize
>some aspect of their conlang.
I am sure this is so. I personally welcome criticism when I put ideas to
the list. It helps one get things more into focus.
>For the most part I am uninterested in artlangs, but that is largely bvecause
>so few get to the stage where the interesting stuff starts to happen
Depends on what one finds interesting ;)
Personally I find discussion of phonology and grammar very interesting -
always have done ever since I realized such things existed!