Re: Are conlangs fictional?

En réponse à Jan van Steenbergen <ijzeren_jan@...>:

>
> Yes, but you can hardly talk about Quenya or Sindarin without referring
> to
> The Master Hymselve.
>
Watch me! I can easily talk about the grammatical features of Quenya without
ever using the word "Elf" :)) . On the other hand, please explain me how to
talk about Sherlock Holmes without referring once to stuff from one of the
books where he appears :) .

>
> Of course. Tintin is fiction, but a book about Tintin is not. If a
> book
> contains fiction, it does not mean that you can't hold a (far from
> fictional) paper copy in your hands :)
>
Yep, and a language is more like a book than like the story it contains.

>
> Difficult. I thought about Esperanto. My conclusion would be that it
> flows
> somewhere in the grey air between fiction and non-fiction. But I agree
> with
> you, it's extremely difficult, not to say hopeless, to draw a line.
>
I agree, and that's why I'm a bit suspicious about your definition. A good
definition of the word "fictional" should at least make it possible to get a
definable grey zone between definable other zones. IMO your definition doesn't
offer that.

> >Even if it appears in a story, the poem in itself, the entity "poem"
> is
> >not a fiction: it has been written down, it can be read, studied
> outside
> >the context where it appeared, like any poem.
>
> I got your point. But still, if I would have to subdivide the
> different "dimensions" of the poem or book, I would do it like this:
> - on kilo ink on paper = no fiction, we all agree on that
> - the story itself. You say no fiction, I say fiction
No, you misunderstand me. The *story* is fiction. The objects referred to in,
or even invented for it, may not on the other hand.

> - fictional objects referred to in the story = fiction, of course
>
Yes, only if they don't exist by themselves!

>
> >Yep, a piece of music referred to in a story but never actually written
> and
> >played. But a piece of music part of a movie plot and which is
> actually
> >written down and used in the movie is not fiction, because it exists
> by
> >itself from now on, even outside the context of fiction.
>
> Q.E.D.
>
My point being that the same demonstration applies to languages.

>
> That's just how you look at it ;) Let's say, according to your
> definition I
> believe you are absolutely right. I just does not satisfy my own
> feeling
> of "fiction".
>
> The same way we distinguish between "a book of fiction" and "a
> fictional
> book", we ought to distinguish between "a fictional language" and (a
> language of fiction?)
>
That wouldn't be bad I think. At least, it emphasizes the fact that the
language, though used for fiction purposes, exists as much as the book in which
the story is written (and which therefore onlu serves for fiction
purposes :)) ).

Christophe.

http://rainbow.conlang.free.fr

Take your life as a movie: do not let anybody else play the leading role.

Reply