On Thu, 24 Feb 2005 13:41:04 -0500, Sally Caves <scaves@...> wrote:
>
>
> LUNATIC SURVEY 2005, by Sally Caves
>
> A. PROFESSION, DEMOGRAPHICS, INCLINATION:
>
> 1. Who are you, and what is the name of your invented language or languages?
> Pseudonyms allowed. (Are you using one? asked "Sally Caves")
My name is Dirk Elzinga; I have two active projects: Miapimoquitch and
Ustekkli (temporary name); and one defunct project, Shemspreg.
> *2. Are you new to the Lunatic Survey or have you filled out a version of
> this survey before?
I remember the survey, but I don't think I participated before.
> 3. Do you have a website for you language/world(s)? If so, please list the
> URL address.
No personal website; an older version of one of my projects can be
found on LangMaker.com.
> 4. What is your email address? name at hostsite dot whatever.
For this list it is dirk dot elzinga at gmail dot com.
> 5. What is your age? (vague answers allowed, but it is an important
> demographic)
38
> 6. What is your gender?
Male
> 7. What is your nationality? Where do you live now?
USA; Spanish Fork, Utah.
> 8. What is your native language?
English
> 9. What natural languages foreign to you have you studied or do you speak?
German, Dutch, Shoshoni
> 10. What is your level of education? i.e., your highest degree achieved or
> sought?
Ph.D.
> 11. What is your profession? Are you a professional linguist? If so, what
> also makes you a conlanger?
I am a professional linguist. I don't understand what is meant by the
last question; I am a conlanger because I construct languages.
> 13. If you are a student, what is your major or your area of study?
N/A
> 14. How long have you been developing your invented language(s)?
Miapimoquitch has been in development for almost 11 years.
> 15. At what age did you first start inventing a language? Can you briefly
> describe your early efforts?
I was a senior in high school. My first project was a Finnish/Quenya
rip-off: multitudinous cases, saccharine melifluity, etc.
> 16. What drew you to start inventing a language and/or constructed world?
> What was the inspiration?
Boredom. My senior year was not intellectually challenging, and I was
firmly under the sway of Tolkien's Middle Earth.
> 17. Did you start inventing before you had heard of the list or after?
> Before you had heard of Esperanto or Tolkien? (I name the two most common
> inspirations)
Before the list but after large doses of Tolkien (and smaller ones of
Esperanto and Finnish).
> 18. Tolkien calls it a "shy art" and a "secret vice"; but that was before
> the Internet. How secret do you keep it from others outside this list for
> much the same reasons?
Like many others, I don't try to keep it a secret, but it just doesn't
come up very often. In my course syllabi I mention it as a piece of
background information; I have found it useful to draw out would-be
linguistics majors (really!).
> 19. Yaguello has called it "pathological," influenced, unfortunately, by a
> lot of psychiatric writings such as _Le Schizo et la langue_. To what extent
> have you encountered such reactions by outsiders you had taken into your
> confidence?
None, I think. I am not a good judge of what others think of me, so I
have no idea if they consider me psychologically flawed for engaging
in language construction. My wife considers it just another of my
nerdy hobbies.
> *20. Do you consider it nerdy to be doing this? This is a term that gets
> tossed around a lot. Or actually sophisticated? Do you need to get a life,
> or is this your life? What is a life?
Nerdy? Of course. But I place a high value on "nerdiness", and am
trying to inculcate this in my own children (nerdiness, not
necessarily language construction; they have to find their own things
to be nerdy about). I find it interesting that the question opposes
nerdiness and sophistication; my experience has shown me that many
things which others consider nerdy can demand a great deal of
sophistication and sensitivity (playing a musical instrument, interest
in alternate realities in the form of science fiction/fantasy, etc).
Language construction is not my life, but it is a nice part of it.
> 21. There has been a connection noted between linguistic and musical
> ability. Are you musically inclined? Do you sing and/or play a musical
> instrument? Do you compose music?
I am musically inclined. I play piano and organ; I am the organist and
choir director for my church congregation. I have composed music;
mostly short instrumental and choir works suitable for use in
religious settings.
> 22. There has been a connection noted between linguistic and mathematical
> ability. Are you mathematically inclined or inclined towards computing in
> any way?
I don't consider myself mathematically inclined, but I am interested
in math and in computer programming. I do feel that there are similar
skills involved in linguistic analysis and mathematics.
> 23. What other passions do you pursue that give you creative pleasure?
> (painting, drawing, sculpting, calligraphy, model-building, novel or
> story-writing, role-playing games, map-making, book-making, poetry,
> web-designing, star-gazing or other?)
Birding (just getting started); mountain biking.
> B. FEATURES OF YOUR INVENTION
>
> 1. Pick the best term for the invented language you are currently invested
> in: auxlang, artlang, engelang, loglang, lostlang, philosophical language,
> or "other." etc.
Miapimoquitch is a lostlang, I suppose, though I don't care much for
the label. Ustekkli is an artlang, and Shemspreg is a mock-IAL turned
artlang.
> 2. Is your conlang a priori (devised from scratch) or a posteriori (based on
> an existing natural language or drawing from a language class such as
> Semitic)?
Miapimoquitch and Ustekkli are a priori; Shemspreg is a posteriori (IE-based).
> 4. Do you have a script for your conlang? What is it called? Could you
> provide me at a later date with a sample of it? Is it on Langmaker's
> "neography" site?
No scripts; Miapimoquitch is the language of a preliterate socieity.
> 5. Briefly describe the outlines of your invented language (syntactical
> structure--VO, OV, etc.; class or type--analytic, synthetic, agglutinating,
> incorporative, accusative, ergative, active, trigger, other, combinations,
> etc.), noting what you have done with it that is innovative in your opinion.
Miapimoquitch is mildly polysynthetic; verbal agreement is
hierarchical; clause structure is predicate initial; there are complex
prosodic and phonological alternations which are intimately tied up
with word structure. There is nothing particularly innovative about
the grammatical or phonological features of the language.
> 7. How extensive would you say your invented language is, now? How big the
> vocabulary? Do you provide a vocabulary list or taxonomy on your website if
> you have one?
The language is not very extensive. The documentation of the language
has taken on a life of its own owing to its fictional backstory,
though. Most of my time on Miapimoquitch is spent thinking about the
documentation and the (fictional) history of the documentation.
> 8. How do you build vocabulary? Some people pull words out of the air;
> others build up a base of root words and affixes. Many do both.
I made a list of phonotactically licit stems and draw from that list
as needed. Word-formation is fairly well-developed, so stems are
potentially subject to a number of word-formation processes, though I
haven't exploited this yet.
> 3. Does a constructed world accompany your invention(s)? What is it called?
No constructed world; the language is part of the Southwest (US) culture area.
> *9. Has your language and conworld ever served in a role-playing game or a
> world shared by other conlangers?
No.
> *10. Briefly describe your conculture (is it within the bounds of this
> world? on another world, etc.?)
The world of the Miapimoquitch was that of the aboriginal US
Southwest. Speakers of the language were a puebloan people (perhaps
even the Anasazi) who disappeared shortly before European exploration
of the area.
> *11. Are the beings who speak your invented language human or alien? If
> alien, what features have you given the language to make it alien or how
> have you restricted or expanded its phonology? vocabulary?
Speakers of Miapimoquitch are human.
> 12. What do you write in it? Poems? chants? lullabyes? prayers? history?
> stories? recipes? Are any of these exhibited on your website?
I have a few traditional stories (based loosely from Paiute and
Shoshoni models) and a retelling of the Babel story.
> 13. Can you speak your conlang? Are you fluent in it? Is this a goal for
> you? Have you tried to teach it to an intimate? a companion animal? :)
I cannot speak Miapimoquitch; this is not a goal of mine. However it
was a goal for Shemspreg, and is a goal for Ustekkli, but Shemspreg
was abandoned, and Ustekkli is not "big" enough yet.
> 14. Have you made any soundbytes of your language? Could you provide me at a
> later date with a sample of them?
No sound files.
> *15. If you use Roman script, how recognizably "phonetic" is your writing
> system? In other words, do you use unconventional letters or letter
> combinations to represent sounds? Why or why not? I'm thinking, of course,
> of Etabnannery, for those who remember it.
For Miapimoquitch, I have adopted linguistic transcription practices
for the presentation of language data as well as a scheme for
representing the language in the Deseret Alphabet (this is connected
with the fictional backstory of the discovery and documentation of the
language). Shemspreg has a practical orthography which is confined to
the ASCII character set, and which uses digraphs based on English
models (e.g. <sh> for [S]). Ustekkli has / will have a "Nordic"-style
orthography, but details are still being fleshed out. I place great
value in the transparency of orthographies, but not necessarily in the
universality of the conventions used. I do not care for deliberately
obscurantist schemes.
> 16. How many of you sing in your language and have invented songs for that
> purpose?
No.
> *17. How many of you, for entertainment or any other reason, resort to
> gibberish? (This is in response to Adrian Morgan's question in December).
> Does it give you ideas for conlanging? (Have you ever fooled anyone?) How
> many of you have sung gibberish?
No.
> *18. What on-line games do you play? (or devise?) Translations, Babel-text,
> Relays, etc.
None. I tried a relay, but the texts used in relays are invariably
culturally foreign to the imagined speakers of the language, and I am
not willing to create cultural analogues for the sake of the game. I
did a Babel text in Miapimoquitch, but only after substitution of
culturally appropriate practices (adobe, etc). I'm not likely to do
that again.
> 19. Which do you prefer doing: devising phonology? script? structure?
> building vocabulary?
In order: (morpho)phonology, (morpho)syntax, lexicon, script / orthography.
> 20. Do you start and stop several different conlangs, or do you tend to
> stick with one and develop it over years?
I am a conlang monogamist, though I'm stepping out on Miapimoquitch
with Ustekkli right now.
> 21. What do you think makes a "complete" conlang, if a conlang can attain
> completion? What are your goals for completion? When do you grow "tired" of
> your conlang, or don't you?
I don't believe that a deliberately constructed language can be
complete. I will be finished with my projects when they don't
entertain me or hold my interest anymore. I have had fallow periods
before; I'm in one now, and I expect to have them again. But I don't
expect to ever abandon the hobby for good.
> *22. Which came first: the conlang or the conworld?
Miapimoquitch came first; only later did I decide that it would be set
in the aboriginal Southwest.
> C. PHILOSOPHY AND AESTHETIC:
>
> 1. What aesthetic features do you value in inventing language? Be specific
> as to phonology, structure, script, etc.
My first concrete impulses in the design of Miapimoquitch were
negative; I was tired of countless projects which included (among
other things): lots of cases (a la Finnish/Quenya), ergative
alignment, agglutination, and utterly uninteresting phonologies, which
usually consisted of just an inventory with no thought given to
phonological alternations. So I set out to design a language which
included a simple phonological inventory but complex
(morpho)phonological alternations, non-agglutinative morphology, no
case, and a hierarchical alignment system. Over time, this combination
of features became attractive in its own right, and my initial
frustration with "simpler" phonologies has lessened considerably. I
still value realism in phonology and morphology, but I also recognize
that not everyone is interested in it.
> 2. What commonly applied aesthetics have you ever tried to avoid in your
> invention? This has been an oft debated question, especially when it comes
> to Tolkien.
I'm not interested in "melifluousness" or in having "nice" sounding
languages. I seem to visualize phonological structure more than
auditorily imagine them and am often surprised by how things sound
when I try sounding them out myself. But I never use the sound of
words to guide their creation or alter them once created.
> 3. Is difficulty or obscurity a goal in inventing a language?
Not for me; though the morphophonology of my languages probably seems
deliberately obscure or difficult to others.
> 4. Is efficiency a goal in inventing a language? This question needn't
> cancel out the previous one.
No.
> 5. How natural do you wish to make it, or is that a concern? Or rather, how
> unnatural do you wish to make it?
Naturalism is a concern, and I would like my language to be
naturalistic to the point where persons might be fooled when reading
documentation on the language. However it is not my intention to
deliberately deceive, only that the language and its documentation
seem realistic enough to be possible. I firmly believe that the
verisimilitude of a language depends mostly on its documentation, and
not on features of the language itself.
> 6. Can conlanging be sexy? sensual? obsessing? how does it heal or harm you?
Conlanging is a hobby. When I get tired of it, I go do something else.
> *7. How many of you have developed a rich vocabulary of obscenities?
No.
> 8. Can it be mystical? To what extent does conlanging fulfill a spiritual
> purpose for you? Or a magical one? Did it ever start out that way?
No.
> 9. How many of you have developed a rich vocabulary of magical, religious,
> or incantatory terms?
No.
> *10. How many of you have striven to invent words that express novel ideas,
> or are not expressed in any natural language that you know?
Not yet. I don't plan on deliberately constructing novel ideas, but
I'm sure that they will come up.
> 11. Name a few of the words in your language(s) that you are most pleased
> with and are the most original to you.
I don't have enough words to be pleased with any of them in
particular. I do like the Gothic word _fraistubnjai_ "temptation",
though.
> 12. How do you sense that a word is "right" for its meaning? How much do you
> labor at fitting a sound to its sense? Or don't you care?
I don't know.
> *13. Do you ever rely on a software program to build vocabulary? Do those
> who don't think that's cheating? :)
I used a perl script to generate phonotactically possible stems. I
draw from that list as needed. For Ustekkli I am avoiding a
pregenerated list, and it's going a lot slower.
> *14. Is conlang a hobby, a craft, or an art in your mind? This has been
> hotly debated, so the question is not as weird as it seems. Can conlanging
> be considered an art? Why or why not?
Hobby. I know that some consider it an art, but I don't.
> *15. If it is, who do you think are its consumers?
N/A
> *16. This question is directed as well at any auxlangers on the list. Is it
> an art, a political tool, both? And who do you think could be its consumers?
N/A
> *17. There has been some exciting talk recently (and over the years) about
> what a conlang is or is not. If you could pick a metaphor or write a
> descriptive phrase defining "conlang," what would that be?
For me, it's like the definition of pornography: I know it when I see it.
> *18. Why or why not would you eschew the metaphors "miniature" or "model"?
I don't use those metaphors since they don't apply to what I am doing
with Miapimoquitch.
> *19. Is a conlang more like a glimpse of something lifesize? (Irina's
> suggestion in 2001)
Yes.
> *20. There has been some invigorating discussion lately about what a conlang
> can do that most natural languages don't (such as produce OSV structure, or
> eradicate verbs) What experiments have you made with your artlang(s) along
> these lines?
I haven't included anything which in my opinion couldn't also occur in
a natural language, but then my goal isn't to be weird for the sake of
weirdness, as I often feel is the case for some of the more excessive
departures from naturalness.
> *21 What do you think distinguishes a conlang from a natural language, if
> you think so at all? What would it take for a linguist to be fooled into
> thinking a conlang was a natural language?
I don't think that there is any "algorithm" which can be applied to
distinguish natural languages from constructed languages, but that
there is a continuum. Most languages will cluster at one end or the
other, but there are some interesting cases which fall somewhere
closer to the middle.
Competently written documentation is essential for the verisimilitude
of a constructed language.
> *22. How much do you study other languages in order to discover what is
> natural in language? Or to discover how you can stretch the boundaries of
> language to make it do things that are unnatural?
After I decided to eliminate the formal distinction among parts of
speech in Miapimoquitch, I did a little research on analyses which
made the same claim for some natural languages to see how certain
kinds of structures are handled.
> *23. Can such a language function?
Function as what?
> *24. There has been quite a bit of fascinating debate about the relevance of
> conlanging to linguistic study. We all know that linguistics can aid
> conlangers, but in what ways can conlangers aid linguists? Or does it
> matter?
I don't believe that language construction has much to say to the
profession aside from the construction of problems which are meant to
display and highlight typical features of natural languages.
> D. THE LISTSERV
>
> 1. How did you first hear of this list?
A search of email lists done in 1993 uncovered it; I subscribed right away.
> 2. How long have you been on this listserv or on other related listservs?
> Continuously? Infrequently? Off and on? More off than on and vice versa?
I have been part of the list since 1993. I was nomail while I finished
my dissertation, and have recently come back from a nomail episode.
> *3. What is the appeal of being on a listserv and contributing to it? Do you
> think you contribute moderately or excessively, or not enough? Do you tend
> to lurk ?
It was nice to see other enthusiasts. I don't think it's really given
me any ideas for my own projects, though. I contribute to the list in
varying degrees depending on what else is going on. For the most part,
I tend to remain silent.
> *4. For those of you who remember its inception, how has it changed over the
> past decade?
I don't remember its inception, but when I joined there was a lot of
talk about Lojban and IALs. This began to shift in 94-95, then with
the Great Schism (the formation of AUXLANG), the talk on this list was
almost exclusively about artlangs (along with the usual flare-up of
YAEPTs) with the occasional thread about engelangs.
> *5. How helpful has the list been in developing your language? In learning
> linguistic information?
Not very. Though it was a good motivator to finish up the initial
version of Miapimoquitch (then called Tepa), and listmembers provide
nice ego strokes for projects.
> 6. What books have you consulted? On your own, or because you heard of them
> on the list?
I consulted several articles on Salish syntax for a particular problem
with Miapimoquitch. I tend to rely on my own familiarity with the
field (linguistics) for sources of information, though comments from
list members have been helpful in more tangential matters.
> *7. Do you peruse the websites of other conlangers?
Yes.
> *8. Do you sense that people on this list are interested in your conlang and
> give you feedback on it?
Used to be; however, since the documentation is for an outdated form
of the language and has been up for quite a while, the number of
responses to it have tapered off. When I do post something, I am
usually gratified to receive interested replies and questions.
> 9. Have you ever set out to learn at least a little bit of someone's
> conlang, if only a word or two, or a phrase?
No.
> *10. Do you peruse Jeffrey Henning's Langmaker.com site?
Occasionally, since Tepa is hosted there (thanks, Jeffrey!).
> *11. What on-line techniques do you use to showcase your conlang, such as
> Audacity or other sound programs, Dreamweaver, Illustrator, Fontography, and
> so forth? Did you hear of them on the list?
None.
> 12. Have you ever tried to introduce a friend to the list?
No.
> 13. Do you know of anyone who does this kind of thing but who has never
> heard of the list?
No.
> *14. What other lists do you frequent related to conlanging?
Langdev.
> *15. What do you think will be the future of the list? I see it giving birth
> to alternate lists like Conworld, Lostlanguages, Romlang, etc. What improves
> the present list and its helpfulness or entertainment value?
I don't know. I don't find the list as entertaining as I used to. I
don't know if this reflects changes in the list or changes in me.
Likely both.
> *16. What Internet technology would you most like to see developed that
> would aid you in showcasing your language(s)?
I don't know.
> *17. What lists like conlang exist in other cultures and languages that you
> know of?
I don't know of any.
> *18. There has been some terrific talk about CONLANG as a community. And yet
> so many of us seem to want the world to know of it and respect it. Is the
> CONLANG community enough?
Sometimes it's too much. In spite of the fact that we are all
interested in some facet or another of language construction, for me
it is primarily a solitary activity, and the number of people
currently on the list can be rather intimidating.
> *19. In my 2000 on-line article
> (
http://journal.media-culture.org.au/0003/languages.php) I suggested that
> the Internet "may provide a site that, with the impetus of competition and
> showmanship, encourages inutile and obsessive activity"; I was quoting Jeff
> Salamon's article "Revenge of the Fanboys." Village Voice 13 Sep., 1994. He
> wrote that over ten years ago. Do outsiders still entertain such notions, do
> you think, about listservs like this one? Do you? To what extent has the
> list increased obsessive development in you? Would you be inventing as
> furiously as you are without the list or knowledge of other inventors?
> 20. If asked whether it is not better to turn your linguistic talents to the
> learning and speaking of natural languages (a common response I've met with
> and aimed at criticizing introversion or solipsism), how would you answer?
It would depend on who is offering the criticism and in what spirit it
is offered. I don't know how I would respond, since I've never faced
this criticism myself.
> *21. In Elizabethan times there were the inkhorn neologisms. There were
> ciphers and pasigraphies. Today there is conlanging. Do you think the
> contemporary world is more open to language innovation or more closed?
I think that those who are open to it are more easily reached than
before. So rather than face the potential ridicule of the "masses",
one opens oneself up to a group of like-minded persons.
> *22. What would Tolkien have done with such a community? He writes in "A
> Secret Vice" that language inventors "hardly ever show their works to one
> another, so none of them know who are the geniuses at the game, or who are
> the splendid 'primitives'." He suggests that perhaps in a later time
> language invention will become respectable, and such things can be
> exhibited. Have we reached that time?
I don't know what Tolkien would have done. We have obviously reached
the time where we can exhibit our projects, since many of us are doing
just that. I don't know that this makes it any more respectable,
though.
> *23. Is there a danger that over-exposure can make conlanging "banal"? To
> what extent is it exciting because it is a) considered disreputable, "corny"
> or "mad," or b) largely unknown to the world? Does it have a fizzle-out
> date? In other words, is it just a fad, or is it a natural human
> inclination that will stand the test of time?
No. I don't think that language construction will ever suffer from
overexposure, since the percentage of the population at large
interested in constructed languages is likely to remain as small as it
ever has been. I don't know that 'disreputable' is the word I'd use;
perhaps 'private'. It seems a very private thing to shout to the
world.
> Finally, may I have your permission to use any of this material of yours for
> my academic work on conlanging? First name? last name? pseudonym? anonymous?
Yes. You may use my name.
Dirk (as I am on gmail, watch the Reply-to).