Re: conlang t-shirt
|From:||Raymond Brown <ray.brown@...>|
|Date:||Monday, November 8, 1999, 18:50|
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
>>(website updates, tech, theory, tan, terminology, usage, help, most of the
>>"general purpose" offs) should stay here, and the discussion of things
>>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.
>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.
A mind which thinks at its own expense
will always interfere with language.
[J.G. Hamann 1760]