Re: Malat (Was: New Language)

Garrett wrote:
>
> Laurie Gerholz wrote:
> > I agree with you about "if it's not unique, then why do it?" But I think
> > I can rest assured that mine will be unique. Even if two conlangers work
> > off of the same material (like those who like to create fictional
> > extensions or future evolutions of existing natlangs) they will produce
> > distinct products. Everyone is working off of their own unique
> > combination of personal aesthetics, goals and linguistic experience. The
> > results can't help but be different.
>
> Well, my personal opinion is that there is no real point in making languages close to
> natlangs... what's wrong with just using that natlang?
Why make a modification of a natlang? To explore might-have-beens, if
the evolution of a language or culture had taken a different turn? Kind
of the linguistic equivalent of alternate history speculative fiction.
Or to explore what a language might become?

> If you're going to create a
> work of art, be original... make up some wierd rules for the language, have fun with
> it.
I was only using the example of natlang extension to illustrate that
each conlanger's results *will* be unique. If a conlanger starts from
whole fresh cloth, well, then it's guaranteed to be unique. Especially
if the conlanger is making a conscious effort to not duplicate familiar
languages.

As far as originality goes, I believe it will simply follow with only a
little conscious attention on the part of the conlanger. I fall into
that category of conlanger that enjoys creating languages that are
believable, given what we know of human language capacity. That's simply
the "landscape" I like working with. Others here have purposely
attempted to find and use "human" language features that are extremely
rare or perhaps even unknown among the current known human natlangs.
Still others have tried to extend speculation to alien beings, positing
language-producing means other than a audible vocalizations, or thought
patterns which are qualifiably different from human cognition.

I find all of these types of effort worthy of existance, and worthy of
sharing. You're entitled to your tastes. Have you checked out the
Rikchiks yet? You'll find them at

http://www.cs.hmc.edu/~dmm/rikchik/intro.html

or some of Hermann Miller's creations at

http://www.io.com/~hmiller/

There are other fine efforts at non-human language out there, these are
just a couple off the top of my head.

<discussion of auxlangs snipped, as I don't follow those>

>
> > Here's another parallel to my painting. A hundred other artists may have
> > already painted some famous piece of landscape. Will I try it too? Of
> > course. A work from me will embody my unique perspective, and the unique
> > incident in time at which I make it. My work will be just as worthwhile
> > as those done by those hundred other painters.
I'll just leave the above statements from my prior post in. This also
addresses the "originality" concern. Sometimes "originality" is subtle;
it's one new person's take on a well-used subject. Does that make the
new effort unworthy, because many have already worked with it? Not in my
book. But if your soul impels you to search far afield for ground that
is relatively untouched, then go for it!

> >
> > > My language is very unique compared to any
> > > other conlangs/natlangs that I know, so I consider my project worthy to last.
> > > That's the reason I'm not wasting my time on a euroclone or "international
> > > auxiliary language" or stuff like that. Those may be fun for some people... but
> > > since esperanto is so popular, what's the point?
> >
> > You certainly have a right to define your own personal goals in this
> > activity. But as far as I'm concerned, the only thing that makes a
> > conlang "worthy to last" is whether the creator is enjoying working with
> > it.
>
> Well, i guess i don't have much fun myself when i'm copying natlangs, so i wouldn't
> consider it a worthy project...
>
I guess I don't see it as "copying". Are you suggesting that there is a
certain amount of unused linguistic features which must be included
before a conlang is acceptable to you? By "unused", I mean features
which are not present in any known natlang. If this is the case, I think
you may be searching for a long time before arriving at a sufficiently
large set of features to use. We've had many discussions on the list to
determine whether a certain feature is present in any known natlangs.
It's been a rare case when someone has concocted a feature which seems
to be truly new and unique. I am, of course, speaking of those
conlangers who choose to work in the natlang-simulation realm. If you
wish to move outside natlang simulation, then there are a lot more
original features to put together. That has moved out of *my* area of
interest, but I think there are a number of others here who do enjoy
that kind of thing.

Laurie
---
Laurie Gerholz
milo@winternet.com