[DISC] Is Language Creation Art?
|From:||David Peterson <digitalscream@...>|
|Date:||Wednesday, March 13, 2002, 21:30|
In a message dated 03/13/02 10:00:14 AM, and_yo@HOTMAIL.COM writes:
<< Tell me why I should want Conlanging to become (considered as) a serious
To this, and to other statements like this: I don't like hobbys; I don't
like crafts. I've never had any, and I don't plan to ever take any up. When
I do something, I don't fiddle around with it, I do it. I don't create
languages to see how different things would work; I create them for the
aesthetic, and only for the aesthetic. To me, creation is the basis of art.
If, then, one creates something seriously, and wants it to be taken
seriously, then it should be taken seriously. Why you should want it?
Frankly, I don't care. If you don't, and it does (which it just might not,
in our lifetimes, if ever), would this somehow affect you in a negative way?
If so, that would be defining one's self and one's beliefs based on external
forces. If one agrees that this is so (and I'm not saying that that's a
given), why would you want to hinder language creation becoming an accepted,
serious art? After all, as John Milton said, a virtue untested is an impure
virtue, and, therefore, not a virtue at all.
"Zi hiwejnat zodZaraDatsi pat Zi mirejsat dZaCajani sUlo."
"The future's uncertain and the end is always near."