Re: Fakelangs

From: "Christian Thalmann" <cinga@...>

> > I had supposed that Christian was describing not 'altlangs' (or,
> > as David Peterson called them, 'histlangs') but rather languages
> > whose description is part of the greater fiction. So, for example,
> > the description of Kinya is (or at least was) replete with full
> > scholarly apparatus, footnotes, bibliography (whose entries are
> > fictional). The fiction surrounding the description of Miapimoquitch
> > is so convincing that it can and has deceived people into believing
> > it to be real.
>
> Exactly, that's what I meant.  Maybe we should call them
> fictlangs (a bit too generic) or lostlangs (though not all
> of them are necessarily lost).  How about verilang, after
> the primary goal of verisimilitude?
I like that word, 'verilang'. And now I see what you meant about the
'versimilitude of the Techs'. They are based on myth, but myth reconciled
with modern scientific theory (the idea of a race of beings created from
fire identified with the concept of pure-energy life forms).

So Tech might not be in the same classification, since it's not a human
language, but an extraterrestrial or spiritual one.

Reply