Re: CHAT: t-shirt

On Tue, 26 Sep 2000, Dan Jones wrote:

> David wrote:
>
> > Oh my!  Just as I was about to congratulate us all for having
> > navigated the
> > auxlang perils and apparently coming to a rational conclusion, we get
> > anti-conlang protests.  This was not at all expected.  Surely we
> > artlangers
> > haven't become that myopic.  We don't judge language creations by these
> > criteria here.  At least I hope we don't.  Nicole, please ignore this
> > ill-considered advice!
>
> Excuse me for sharing my opinions! </offense>. Everyone is entitled to their
> opinions. When we agreed on including the conlanging "classics", I presumed
> that we meant Tolkien's languages and so on, not a spin-off from a TV series
> copyrighted in 1985! I suppose it depends on your definition of classic.
> Still, if the majority wants it on the shirt, I'm quite happy to go along
> with that, especially since it'll be written in pIqaD (which I quite like,
> BTW).
(timidly)  I remember a comp sci prof commenting that "only in computer
science could someone refer to my 1985 paper on X as 'a classic of the
literature.'"

I don't know all the lineage of conlanging (as distinct from auxlanging),
though I've heard lingua ignota (sp?) mentioned, but I could see people
200 years from now, in their books on the history of conlanging,
mentioning Tolkien's works, as well as the somewhat later Klingon, as a
contribution to the field.  Am I wrong?

> As for not judging language creations by these criteria, yes we do. Justin
> Rye's Ranto, and our own Geoff Eddy's critique of Esperanto, for example.
> Instead of constantly criticizing E-o, why not look objectively (and I do
> believe I was being objective in the main) at other languages?
<rueful look>  You'd probably think very poorly of Chevraqis...I claim
only the excuse that it's my first real attempt and that future attempts
*ought* to turn out better.  OTOH I feel no need to advocate Chevraqis
over anyone else's conlangs on aesthetic or other grounds; it's being
devised for a very specific purpose and I know it's in many ways a less
knowledgable and less creative endeavor.  Someday.  :-)

Also, from what I understood of the Ranto, its criticisms were at least
to some extent based on claims (as the Ranto's author understood them?)
for Esperanto's aims and successes thereof.  (I don't know enough
linguistics, auxlanging or Esperanto to make any claims myself on whether
those criticisms were justified.)

But surely Klingon had different aims than Esperanto and should at least
partly be judged by what its creator intended?

> Besides, I thought Klingon was copyrighted anyway? Before we decide to
> include it, ought not someone check this?
I would tend to agree that getting sued by Paramount or Gene
Roddenberry's heirs or whoever would probably suck.

YHL