Re: Real Conlangs Here, Made-to-Order!

<<There are computer programs which make music, so I will not be
surprised if a computer program makes grammar and vocabulary
of a language.>>   <snip>

My point was this.   If you define the usability of a language by the number
of words, then there's no reason why you shouldn't take the grammar of
English (or whatever language you want) and then just swith a sound in every
word to come up with a new "language", with the same number of words as
English and a fully, fleshed-out grammar.   It would, however, be incredibly
poor art (however one chooses to define that term).   Also, if it's only in
philosophical languages where one creates creative "compounds", then IMHO
(that's the first time I've used that abbreviation), that's being a really
lazy conlanger.   It's kind of like creating a word for "monk", 'cause you
need a word to create, and "monk" is a word, without thinking about whether
or not (a) there will be religions in the society one creates (fleshed out
society or not), and (b) that these religious institutions will have people
equivalent to monks.   If the point of the language is to actually use it in
real life for communication and conversation, isn't that what auxlangs are
for?   Or, like, English?   It's not to say that you can't create a
non-auxlang-conlang for communication, but if you want to talk about things
like cars, democracy, soda, mixing boards, microchips, etc., one pretty much
has to assume that the culture of the created language is the culture of the
speaker, which, like it or not, is cutting a corner.

In short, though, I think what you've called a philosophical language is what
many of us think of as "normal" conlangs.   In which case, no, there is no
computer that could ever do it.   (This reminds me of If On a Winter's Night
a Traveler...)   It also means that vocabulary is not as easy as saying, "The
new word for 'pathos' will be [eTulivo].   The new word for 'bathos' will be
[k'aturosuna].   The new word for 'understatement' will be [untavuntabi]."
This is what I did with my first language, and while it's huge, and DOES have
as many words as listed on my Babel Text (I'll give you the document so that
you can count, if you'd like, to verify), it's utterly useless, because it's
poor art.

Christophe wrote:

<<It's sad to see young people having an already old mind...>>

Careful what you say.   That's a lot of people you're stereotyping.   Know
what the 5 to 1 stands for in the Doors' "5 to 1"?   ;)

-David

Replies