Re: conlang t-shirt

At 8:08 pm -0500 7/11/99, Sam Bryant wrote:
>Paul Bennet wrote:
>>Oh, certainly.  I may have misthunk when I said "general principles".  What I
>>meant was for the discussions that form maybe a half or two thirds of this
>>list
>>(website updates, tech, theory, tan, terminology, usage, help, most of the
>>"general purpose" offs) should stay here, and the discussion of things
>>specific
>>to individual artlangs or artlangs in general (and associated topics, such as
>>relays) could move to an artlang list.  As stated, I'd still read and post in
>>both, but the distinction is probably useful.
>
>My gut reaction is that this would cripple growth of the community.
I see - so that's what the proposed split was about.  I'm 100% with Sam on
this one.  There are lists a-plenty for different sorts of conlangs &
particular conlangs if one looks.  But to move all artlang topics from this
list would, I think, kill it off.  When one's removed auxlangs & artlangs -
there's not a great deal left.

Oh yes, I know - there are loglans.  But I suspect if one were specifically
interested in them one would be on, say, the lojban list.

>New (or
>newly online) conlangers are going to find the CONLANG list first, and I
>think it is precisely the discussion of artlangs here that attracts so many
>of us to this list.
I think this is largely true.

>To take away from the word "conlang", in the souls of
>netizens, the associations of exactly the atmosphere we have here, I think,
>would be a bad thing, and putting all the techs/theory/tangent stuff in the
>most prominent list would cause more problems than it creates.
It would kill it, I think.

Ray.

=========================================
A mind which thinks at its own expense
will always interfere with language.
                   [J.G. Hamann 1760]
=========================================