Re: [Conlangs-Conf] Witty slogan

I got this email in re. the slogan. Am forwarding it moreorless intact
but anonymized; the writer is welcome to take credit for it if zie
wishes to, of course. I think it's cogent enough on its own.

Personally, I disagree (but understand this person's point), for
reasons I think it best not to elaborate on right now. But... I (per
usual) have a fairly unusual perspective on the subject I suppose -
and this would be one of those cases where I want to take a somewhat
removed view from my peronal opinions, and put on my more
organizational / objective hat.

I don't want to be seriously offensive to anyone, but also want to
know that this isn't an isolated reaction. Any of the rest of you have
some comment on this?

For that matter, can anyone give an etymology of the motto? I don't
know whom to credit for it.

 - Sai


---------- Forwarded message ----------
Sai,

Re: "Fight language extinction - create a language!"

I strenuously object to this slogan.  I'm not sure how
it became associated with constructed language
enthusiasts, but I wish it weren't.

Language extinction is real.  It's a source of pain
and strife for millions and millions of people.  I
know the slogan is tongue-in-cheek, but I feel that it
belittles and mocks the issue, and in the process
makes conlangers seem callous and out-of-touch with
real world linguistic and political issues.

Mainstream linguists are sensitive to the issue of
language death, and many prominent scholars,
especially at UCB, have devoted their careers to
documenting and preserving threatened languages.  What
conlangers do is important, and interesting, but it
does *not* "fight language extinction" and to imply
that it does, even ironically, is offensive and IMO
not very funny.

... [another email later] ...

I don't think anyone could seriously advocate that
constructing languages "fights language extinction,"
and it's certainly not the intended goal of those who
practice it (except in a few debatable cases, like
Hebrew).  That's why the slogan is "witty": it's
ironic.  It's not a statement of the goals (or even
the side-effects) of the enterprise of constructing a
language, and I don't think anyone sees it as such.

Still, to imply that constructing a language can
"offset" the loss of a natural language and its
culture, or even that the two are comparable, is IMO
crass.  No one, upon hearing of the death of, say,
Northern Pomo, will be comforted by the fact that now
we have Lojban. (Nor would the creators of Lojban, I
imagine, feel that it was their business to make up
for the loss of Northern Pomo.)

Moreover, linguists are already very sensitive to
language death issues, e.g., funding for language
documentation and revitalization projects.  Framing
conlinguistics as a solution to language death,
whether seriously or in jest, may not be the best way
to win such linguists over to our cause.

It's not a matter of offending no one, it's a matter
of not offending the people that count.

You can forward these arguments in any format you
please - I just didn't want to hurt the feelings of
the person who came up with the slogan.  He or she
obviously had good intentions.

Replies