Re: A question and introduction

Andy Canivet sikyal:

> >(I'm of the opinion that the best method to construct an artlang is to
> >invent a conculture -- everything in the language is driven by the
> >culture, which gives the language a deep, internal consistency, sorta like
> >how a fern leaf looks like a miniature fern, etc.. It just *feels* right.
> >:-P)
I'm sort of the opposite opinion.  I have seen too many langs that depend
too heavily on some "concept," which is said to flow from the culture, and
which permeates the language in totally absurd ways. "This culture
worships cows, so they only use the letters c-o-w, and all words have
three syllables to match the number of letters in the word COW, and there
are 348 individual roots for different kinds of cows, plus a whole set of
cow-forming affixes, and poetry based on the noises that cows make, etc,
etc, ad nauseum." This "deep, internal consistency" quickly turns into
banality.

Concultures are needed to make religious, familial, food vocabulary, etc.,
but I'm deeply suspicious of the langs that have cultural aspects to their
grammar or morphology. It's Sapir-Whorf in reverse.


Jesse S. Bangs jaspax@u.washington.edu
http://students.washington.edu/jaspax/

"If you look at a thing nine hundred and ninety-nine times, you are
perfectly safe; if you look at it the thousandth time, you are in
frightful danger of seeing it for the first time."
--G.K. Chesterton

Reply