Theiling Online    Sitemap    Conlang Mailing List HQ   

Re: The Language Code, take 2 (or 3)

From:Jan van Steenbergen <ijzeren_jan@...>
Date:Thursday, June 12, 2003, 6:03
 --- And Rosta skrzypszy:

> A personal conlang is one not created as an aesthetic object but rather as a > code for private use. In that sense it is like an auxiliary language, but > for personal/private rather than international use.
I am aware that there is a fundamental difference between those two. My point was that it is hard to establish which qualification would fit a particular conlang best, because this is something only its creator can tell, and we are not always able to ask him/her. Besides, many conlangs are a bit of both.
> My feeling is that philosophical langs fall into the class of engineered > langs (which would also include logical langs).
Interesting, I hadn't even thought of that possibility. But yes, that seems plausible. Luckily, we can opt for more that one category simultaneously, right, so that a language can both be "e" and "x"?
> > >> However, another distinction should IMO be made within this category: > > >> between a priori and a posteriori (a scale would be useful here, > > >> something like a+++) > > > > > > Good suggestion, except it applies to all non-natlangs > > > > It applies to all non-natlangs, but it's only really relevant for > > auxlangs, no? In any case, I think it's a parameter worth including > > It applies also to other conlangs; cf. Wenedyk, Shemspreg, Brithenig &c. > Though these are a special sort of historically plausible a posteriori, > not mere eclectical aposteriorism.
Exactly! I couldn't have put it any better. Let me just add that in my view this distinction is important, perhaps equally important as the difference between auxlang and artlang.
> > Okay, so that answers another question I had. You consider logical > > languages to be a subtype of engineered languages then. If this is a > > widespread feeling, then it lends more support to changing the label > > from "l" to "e" > > Yes, except it was me that said this both times, so it's me that is > lending my suggestion more support. That said, I am convinced I'm 'right', > because conlangingwise that's my hometurf.
FWIW, I agree, even though it is not my hometurf. (Dirk:)
> > So here's my revision for Type: > > > > T type > > x auxiliary > > a -/+ a priori/a posteriori > > f fictional > > e engineered > > p personal > > n natural > > o other
Great, although I agree with And's suggestion to apply the "a -/+" section to all non-natlangs. Jan ===== "Originality is the art of concealing your source." - Franklin P. Jones __________________________________________________ Yahoo! Plus - For a better Internet experience http://uk.promotions.yahoo.com/yplus/yoffer.html

Replies

Nikhil Sinha <nsinha_in@...>(no subject)
Christophe Grandsire <christophe.grandsire@...>(no subject)
And Rosta <a.rosta@...>
Dirk Elzinga <dirk_elzinga@...>