introduction Middelsprake: artlangs & conlangs vs. auxlangs
|From:||Ray Brown <ray.brown@...>|
|Date:||Wednesday, June 29, 2005, 17:43|
On Tuesday, June 28, 2005, at 05:10 , Henrik Theiling wrote:
> Carsten Becker <naranoieati@...> writes:[snip]
>> Oh, yeah, and welcome to the list -- but actually, if you
>> intend to make an Interlingua, this is not quite the right
>> place since we're dealing rather with constructed languages
>> for artful purposes (conlangs) here.
This is not correct. It is true that artlangers are almost certainly in
the majority now, when this list began many years ago the emphasis was on
what we now call _engelangs_.
In fact this list is, as its name implies, intended for the discussion of
_any_ constructed languages as languages. It is still the *conlang* list,
not the artlang list :)
>> There's a seperate list
>> dedicated to auxiliary languages (auxlangs).
> I really don't think that was Ingmar's intention. I did not know how
> to read his first posting, but now it's clear that the idea is to
> simply discuss it.
> That's what this list is for. And probably it's even the best place
> to discuss it. :-)
I agree - Ingmar's Middelsprake seems to me entirely suitable for this
On Tuesday, June 28, 2005, at 11:27 , tomhchappell wrote:
> To me, an ArtLang is an ARTificial LANGuage constructed for ARTistic
AFAIK that's what we all understand by artlang.
> All FictLangs are ArtLangs, by that definition. But note, not all
> ArtLangs need be FictLangs.
Umm - once upon a time we talked about artlangs, loglangs & auxlangs - and
we had the Gnoli triangle, where it was suggested that individual conlangs
did not necessarily belong to one of the apexes, but might be anywhere in
the triangle (go figure ;)
Then it was found that this was too restrictive and the term _engelang_
(engineered language) was coined, loglangs being a subcategory of
Do we need 'fictlangs' also? If it means "fictitious language" then it
culd be argued that all conlangs are fictlangs (certainly all 'fictae
If it means 'language designed for fiction', then not 'fictlangs' are
artlangs. Laadan is surely an engelang.
> Is that about what most others think? Or does it need modification?
Er - does _what_ need modification?
On Wednesday, June 29, 2005, at 06:18 , Stephen Mulraney wrote:
> IIRC, under the ancien regime, discussion of auxlangs was not forbidden,
> only promotion of them as auxlangs. That is, discussion of their technical
> details was allowed.
Absolutely - that was certainly the case.
> I'm not aware that any intentional change in policy
> has occurred,
Nor was I.
> though the occasional instances of auxlang-related trouble
> sometimes has the result of suggesting to people that discussion of
> auxlangs themselves should be forbidden. IMHO, this doesn't make a
> lot of sense. For one things, auxlangs stripped of their politics are as
> interesting as other conlangs.
Quite so - some like Solresol are very interesting IMHO.
> And Ingmar certainly seems to be capable
> of keeping within the allowed region of discussion, even if other auxlang
> authors aren't..!
I agree - I cannot image why discussion of Middelsprake should not take
place here. Indeed, unless Auxlang has changed a lot since I left it, I do
not think Ingmar would find it nearly so profitable discussing it there.
As Henrik observed: "That's what this list is for. And probably it's even
the best place to discuss it."
"A mind which thinks at its own expense will always
interfere with language." J.G. Hamann, 1760