Re: Hierarchy of Topicality WAS: RE: A plea
|From:||Raymond Brown <ray.brown@...>|
|Date:||Thursday, September 14, 2000, 5:27|
At 4:05 pm -0400 13/9/00, The Gray Wizard wrote:
>> From: H. S. Teoh
>> On Wed, Sep 13, 2000 at 12:07:10PM -0400, Vasiliy Chernov wrote:
>> > Also, I'd propose a Hierarchy of Topicality, of three levels:
>> > 1) Conlanging
>> > 2) Natlangs and general linguistics
>> > 3) The rest
>> > (indeed, subject to amending by everybody)
>> Hmm... about conculturing? I know it properly belongs to the conculture
>> list, but sometimes conlanging and conculturing are quite tightly
>> intertwined. I propose we include conculturing with (1) as long as it is
>> still related to conlanging.
>I would prefer if conculturing were kept as a separate category. Just MHO.
I must agree with David on this. By the same logic we could say we include
general linguistic in (1) "as long as it is still related to conlanging",
or indeed anything else in (1) "as long as it is still related to
conlanging". And, of course, every so often _ObConlang_ gets added to an
off topic posting to persuade us that "it is still related to conlanging".
No - conlangs are constructed, modelled (or whatever) for many different
reasons; some, e.g. lojban, AllNoun, would not 'naturally' have any
conculture connected with it.
To be honest, I find conculture threads generally rather boring and they
tend to get trashed unread (or just skimmed through). If it's though that
conculture should not just go into (3) - and I certainly have not quarrel
with keeping it separate - then I think David is right in suggesting a
separate category. Obviously 'The rest' becomes (4).
A mind which thinks at its own expense
will always interfere with language.
[J.G. Hamann 1760]