Re: CHAT: Synesthesia and conlanging (was Re: The Conlang Instinct)

>
>On Thu, 2 Dec 1999, Grandsire, C.A. wrote:
>
>> whereas we see language simply as a mean to express our thoughts, or
>> even as a piece of art, and so we have the right to create our own piece
>
>Many non-conlangers also look at language this way.
Taken in its full context, I read Christophe's words to mean that one
can do things in a conlang that one cannot do in a natlang.  With a
stick and some wet clay, one can write artistically.  With Adobe
software, one can also write artistically.  Conlangers are the
toolmakers of language, they do not simply work with the given, they
create a new given. The art of toolmaking leads to a higher art. Some
people love to work with the simple and the given, I have some
calligraphy I treasure that probably doesn't differ from something
written thousands of years ago. English literature and conlang
literature are distinct art forms, because English is more rigid than a
personal conlang that can be restructured at will. It is the uniqueness
of conlanging that I am trying to get at. Non-conlangers have no grasp
of the art of creating personal case systems that bring to the fore
what they consider important in the very words they utter.

----------------------------------------------------------------------
Jerry |                                 Without careful communication
Gerald Lea Koenig | jlkatnetcomdotcom   There is boundless demonization.
----------------------------------------------------------------------




>