Re: Are conlangs fictional?

Christophe-
That problem with this analogy is that the only way paintings exist is
if someone creates them.  On the other hand, languages can both evolve
or be created, and so a conlang could be called fictional, as opposed to
a natlang, in the same way a novel could be called fictional as opposed
to, say, a biography.  I'm not saying I think conlangs are fictional; I
don't.  The word fictional applies only to stories.  While trying to map
it to other forms of are is an interesting exercise, it seems weird to
argue over it.  I'm just saying that your analogy is flawed ;-).
-M

Christophe Grandsire wrote:

>
> You see? Confusion on terms. What do you mean in this case by "fictional"?
>
> And to give some comparisons: what would be a fictional painting, other than a
> painting referred to in a story, but which doesn't exist in reality? But if the
> author paints a painting in real life, and then uses it in a story, does it
> make suddenly the painting fictional? I guess not, since the painting is here
> in real life and can be seen outside the context of the fiction it's used in.
> It's the same with Tolkien's languages.
[snip]