Re: a 12th century conlang

On Wed, 24 Mar 1999, Bryan Maloney wrote:

> On Wed, 24 Mar 1999, Edward Heil wrote:
>
> > of phonetics, what would be an elegant and spiffy grammar...  Or else
> > diving in and making something which if perhaps less clever is from the
> > soul, and not just the brain.
>
> The "brain" is every bit as much a part of "the soul" as any touchy-feely
> stuff might be.
>
> Why defend one method by putting down another?  And if you claim that you
> were not putting down another method, you're a liar, since you did say
> "not just the brain", and the use of "just" in such a context is an
> obvious put-down, implying that a left-brain approach is inherently
> inferior or less complete than a right-brain approach.
>
That's rather harsh, Bryan.  Besides, almost every defense of one's own
position will naturally include willfull or unintentional insult of the
other position.  If the President of University A defends her institution
by saying "we're not just any university, were UA!"; certainly that's the
same insult as the above.  The defender of RPN says "the logic, inherent
unambiguity and ease of machine applications marks RPN as a superior
system"; clearly an insult against the illogical, ambiguous and difficult
to use standard system of mathematical notation.

In other words, although I can see why someone might find an offense in
the statement, I don't see a particular insult against one method of
conlanging or world building, let alone against any particular conlanger.
I do think it's "inferior" to use _only_ a small portion of our own
resources to create a language (in opposition to using all resources): the
"brain only" and "soul only" are equally guilty.  The one misses the mark
of excellent and artful conlanging by destroying the artistry; the other
misses by failing to make use of the intellect's power.

And to be honest with you, I don't think any of us fit into either
category 100%; so it's more or less a moot point.  If I left the "soul" to
have free reign on Kernu, it would certainly be a lot weirder and messier
(and less likely) than it already is; if I left the brain in control, then
I'd end up with French.  [Somebody's already done that, and I don't really
fancy doing all that work over again.]

The original statement: "One can draw a parallel to methods of conlanging
-- starting with a bunch of abstract decisions about what would be a
clever and unusual bit of phonetics, what would be an elegant and spiffy
grammar...  Or else diving in and making something which if perhaps less
clever is from the soul, and not just the brain."


Padraic.