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

 --- 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