Re: Lighting Some Flames: Towards conlang artistry

In a message dated 03/11/02 8:19:53 PM, jaspax@JUNO.COM writes:

<< *  Naturalness, as the name implies.  We prefer languages that resemble

natural languages, that could fool a linguist examining them into

thinking that they actually existed somewhere on the globe.  Auxlangs and

philosophical langs are anathema because their very nature goes against

this value. >>

    Good, if you're trying to make a natural language.  If not, then why?  Is
Picasso's Guernica supposed to represent natural life?  If not, should we
then judge by natural standards?

<<*  Complexity and completeness.  No natural language is completely

regular or completely simple, so neither will our languages.

Furthermore, we seek to describe and develop our languages as completely

as possible.  Those who make dozens of half-finished sketches are

creating the equivalent of commercial jingles.  We seek to create

symphonies.>>

    Patrick mentioned the haiku.  Yet, no one would argue that the haiku is
incomplete.  It's short, but complete.  Similarly, some languages will just
have more words than others.  The only difference is that it'd take a really,
really, really, really long time to make a perfectly complete language.  I'd
argue that it can never be done.  If one were to judge, all would have to be
judged as works in progress.  And while no language is completely regular,
there are always features of languages which are completely regular.  Going
back to naturalism, one would have to know a lot of languages to judge--I've
seen a few examples recently that really pushed the limits of what I thought
could possibly be natural.

<<*  Creativity, defined as difference from your native language.  If

your native language is Chinese, your target should be Ancient Greek.  If

your native language is English, your target is Dyirbal (tonal, ergative

Australian language).  Those who speak Italian and are only interested in

Romance-style conlangs earn no respect in this area.  Those that seek to

challenge themselves and their learners are applauded.>>

    Yeah, this is absurd; sorry.  :(  James Joyce wrote Ulysses about the
city he was born in, the city he loved: Dublin.  They're always telling you
to write what you know in fiction.  In fact, if you follow the new ways of
contemporary thought in fiction (which I don't, since I can't stand it), you
should never write anything you don't know.  That's going a bit too far, in
my opinion.  I think what you're trying to weed out are languages that are
basically coded over versions of one's own language.  This, I think, would be
avoided naturally by anyone who's put some serious time into language
creation.

    I think one thing (probably the most important thing) you left out here
is author intent.  If one sets out to create a natural language, then you can
look at how natural it is.  If one sets out to create an unnatural language,
then in what ways, and why?  Is there a reason for a lack of complexity in
certain areas and over-complexity in others?  "Why" is the most important
question, not "what".  It's like when we asked the question "what is art" in
a cognitive science class I took.  For every definition someone posited,
there were at least ten exceptions.  What we determined, of course, that
while there was no definition, there was a fuzzy set, and category membership
was determined by various prototypes, and that prototype status was also a
fuzzy set, and that new prototypes were being introduced rather frequently.
    Now, I don't disagree that languages ought to be able to be judged, and
that this could help propel as an artform.  I tried to suggest as much many
months ago, though in much, much, much milder terms, and kind of indirectly,
and Lord, the response!  You'd think I'd sent death threats out, or
something.  So, it'll be interesting to see what people say to this.  ;)
Hee, hee, hee...  I feel for you. We've already seen some; I'm sure it'll get
much hotter, unless you're given the cold shoulder.  Anyway, I don't think
there should be any methods for determining what's good and what's not good,
save personal ones.  A thing to do would be for an individual person to start
reviewing languages, and giving thorough explanations for why s/he said such
and such.  The methods for determining this should be based on each
individual language, and what kind of things the language asks to have
examined, and to what extent.  If you were to make any sort of standard,
there would be truly great languages that would inevitably fail by the
standards, but succeed by popular opinion.  This has happened with every art,
whenever a new form was introduced: jazz, cubism, surrealism, rap...  Thus,
any method of criticism based on outside standards will inevitably fail; each
piece of art must be judged on its own terms.
    So, what I challenge you, Jesse, to do, is to start reviewing languages.
Test them by whatever means seem appropriate to you.  Then let us respond.
Of course, this isn't some established form, like literary criticism, so I
think you should still ask permission first.  Thus, I'll let you go ahead and
look at Kamakawi, my new language.  It's by no means complete, so you're
going to have to hold off on the "completeness" part, but you can judge
what's there.  Do you accept?

-David

"Zi hiwejnat zodZaraDatsi pat Zi mirejsat dZaCajani sUlo."
"The future's uncertain and the end is always near."
                --Jim Morrison