Re: Lunatic Survey
| From: | Tim Smith <timsmith@...> |
|---|
| Date: | Sunday, September 27, 1998, 22:20 |
|---|
At 12:06 AM 9/25/98 -0400, Sally Caves wrote:
>..........[very interesting essay omitted].........
>THE SURVEY:
>
> 1) To what extent is your conlang an "intensely peersonal"
>pursuit--one that you don't often reveal to people other than conlangers?
I don't try to keep my involvement in conlanging secret, but I also don't
talk about it very much, not because I'm afraid of seeming weird (I've long
ago given up trying to pass as "normal") but because I don't think most
people would be interested. In other words, it's not that I don't want to
be eccentric, but that I don't want to be a bore. (An apparent exception to
this is my participation in panels on conlanging and related subjects at
science-fiction conventions -- but there I figure the audience is
self-selecting and has indicated a certain amount of interest by being there.)
> 2) If so, to what extent do you feel that the listserv "Conlang"
>has given you a _raison d'etre_ for
>
> a) pursuing your invented language
The list has certainly encouraged me to spend more time on conlanging.
Although I'm perfectly capable of spending lots of time and energy on a
solitary obsession, and have long since convinced myself that I don't care
what other people think (see my answer to #1), I do find that having people
to talk to about this -- and perhaps even more importantly, just knowing
that there are other people, however thinly dispersed around the world, who
feel that this is an interesting and worthwhile pursuit -- is a great motivator.
> b) making it public?
I still haven't really made any of my conlangs public, even on the Conlang
list -- not because they're too "personal" or anything like that, but
because I don't feel that any of them are sufficiently well-developed to be
"ready for prime time". I have posted messages (sometimes quite extensive)
on the list about specific grammatical points of some of my projects, but
that's all. The basic reason for this is that I have too many conlang ideas
and can't choose among them; I've never been able to concentrate on one, to
the exclusion of all the others, for long enough to develop a reference
grammar, or even a good general overview.
> 3) How many of you, in mentioning your conlang to an
>acquaintance, received a belittling reply? Condescension? Disapproval?
I don't remember ever encountering real disapproval. Condescension, yes, on
occasion. But the fact is that I haven't encountered very many negative
responses because I'm generally pretty selective about who I mention it to
at all. (Again, see my answer to #1.) (I do remember hearing from a "real"
(i.e., professional) linguist that inventing languages is a phase that most
linguists go through, with the implication that most of them outgrow it.)
> 4) How many of you are:
>
> a) high school students or younger?
> b) undergraduates?
> c) graduates?
> c) out of school altogether and supporting yourselves?
I'm in this category, and have been for more than half my life. But I've
had this interest (with varying degrees of intensity) since I was in high
school.
> d) Not in school, never went?
>
>
> 4a) What is your profession, or your desired profession?
I'm a computer programmer/analyst, working for a state government agency.
> 5) How many of you have invented a language because
>
> a) you are solely interested in language experiments
> and linguistics?
>
> i) for personal experiments...
Yes. When I read about an interesting or exotic grammatical feature, I like
to explore its implications and see how far I can go with it. I
particularly like seeing what happens when I try to combine two interesting
features that normally don't co-occur in natlangs (e.g., my recent (not very
successful) attempt to combine an Austronesian-type trigger system with a
modifier-head, OV syntax and agglutinative case morphology.)
> ii) because you like participating in the
> development of an auxiliary language and its
> socio-political effects?
Not particularly. Although I once felt differently, I no longer have much
interest in artificial IALs. (However, I am interested in pidgins and
creoles, which could be regarded as natural IALs, and one of my conlang
projects is a fictional future language descended from an English-based creole.)
> b) you are interested in world-building
>
> i) for fiction
At one time I thought I wanted to write science fiction, but I've found that
I'm much more into world-building than story-telling. I enjoy figuring out
the minutiae that form the backgrounds for SF stories (not just languages,
but planetary environments, political systems, technologies, etc.), but I
don't seem to have much aptitude for developing plots and characters.
> ii) for role-playing and other social activities
Not really. I'd probably enjoy RPGs if I ever got into them, but the last
thing I need is another time-consuming hobby.
> iii) just for your own amusement?
Definitely. (See my answer to #i above.) However, I don't do nearly as
much of this now as I used to. Also, with a couple of exceptions, I haven't
matched up my conlangs with my imaginary cultures. (There's one culture in
particular that I've given a fair amount of thought to that really "wants" a
language, but I haven't figured out which, if any, of my conlang ideas is
suitable for it.)
> 5) How many of you take the time to learn another's conlang?
I haven't, although I find some of them very interesting and esthetically
appealing. (But then, I also haven't taken the time or effort to become
really fluent in any natlang except my native English.)
> 6) How many of you are women?
I'm not.
> 7) Who is lurking period? [these questions I don't expect
> public answers to--if any answers--but I ask it anyway
> to see what happens]
I'm in lurk mode more often than not, mostly for lack of time.
> 7a) If you are women and you are lurking, why are you not
>contributing? This is a shamefully gendered question, but gender and
>participation has been raised, and I'm curious.
>
> 8) Which of you would give me permission to (or object to) my
>mentioning your conlang and webpage (if any) at a convention, in an
>academic article? I'll protect names if so desired [as though this is
>writing pornography!-- now there's something]
I certainly wouldn't object to being named, but there isn't much of mine
that's publicly available and worth referring to.
> 9) For how many of you is "exoticness" in your invented language
>and absolute must? How many of you pursue more familiar models... and
>why to both?
I'm attracted to exoticness (though I haven't got a good definition of it),
but within limits. In general, I try to keep my conlangs "naturalistic" --
that is, compatible with what little is known about human language
universals. In fact, language universals are one of the areas of
linguistics that I find most fascinating, perhaps because I feel that the
nature of human language -- the boundaries that demarcate the set of all
possible human natlangs within the larger set of all logically possible
languages -- constitute a major part of "what it means to be human".
(Although I would like someday to work out a really alien language, one that
seems "workable" in the abstract but is so different from any human language
that no human could possibly acquire native-speaker fluency in it.)
> 9) FINALLY: what is the appeal of an invented language for you?
>Wherein is its "sexiness"? Its spirituality? its sensuality? What keeps
>you at it? How does it benefit you? Does it harm you? heal you?
That's a hard one. I think that perhaps part of the appeal of conlanging is
that languages, unlike most other human artifacts, are not conscious
creations of individuals but unconscious creations of whole cultures. Thus,
by trying to invent a language, you're trying to do something that, on one
level, you know perfectly well that no single human being can ever really
do. You're truly "playing God" -- but in a harmless way, because you're
constantly aware that it _is_ just play; since you're never able to lose
sight of the fact that what you're trying to do is impossible, you don't
fall victim to the hubris that playing God normally entails, nor do you get
depressed because your project is never finished.
Wow! How's that for a pretentious answer? I don't think it really answers
the question, and I'm not sure I even believe it myself, but it's the best I
can do at the moment.
-------------------------------------------------
Tim Smith
timsmith@global2000.net
"Pay no attention to the man behind the curtain."
-- The Wizard of Oz (MGM, 1939)