Re: Presentation on Language Creation

En réponse à David Peterson <DigitalScream@...>:

>
> 1.) What are some of the myths you perceive that irk you?   I could come
> up
> with a bunch, but then that would be just me, and I'm only one
> language
> creator, so I want to get ideas from different people.
>
Well, here are the myths that annoy me most and how I answer them usually ;))) .

"It's impossible to create a real language", as if a sculptor could sculpt
fruit that you can really eat...

"You should see a psychiatrist", or any failure to separate conlanging from
glossolalia.

"You're wasting your time". Sure. Now explain me how you are *not* wasting your
time with your stamps' collection...

"Why are you creating a language when there are so many out there dying without
being recorded". OK, give me the few millions Euros necessary to make an
expedition to this place where a language is about to be extinct and record it
before it's too late. And by the way, it's a linguist's job and I'm not a
linguist...

> 2.) Does anyone have any information on or any links to information on
> the
> history of language creation--specifically, information on NON-Auxlangs
> from
> way in the past?   I found a bunch of information on Auxlangs, but
> very
> little on non, aside from the Voynich manuscript.   Is there anything
> out
> there?
>
Many people already mentioned Lingua Ignota, although it was more a jargon,
replacing nouns and adjectives in Latin sentences using made-up words with no
visible morphology. There is of course the movement of philosophical languages
(you should mention Solresol, although this language at its time was also
advocated as an IAL), like Ro (mention the "characteristica universalis" of
Leibniz, not really an alphabet, not really a language, kind of a precursor of
Loglan/Lojban. Unfortunately I couldn't find a good link about it).
Unfortunately most of the known projects are known because they were advocated
as "Universal Languages" (the term "Auxiliary Language" didn't exist
yet ;))) ). Non-IAL conlangs are probably unknown for the same reason our works
were known by virtually nobody before Internet appeared: conlanging is
essentially a private hobby, and unless you have a particular agenda in mind
you're not likely to boast about it.

> 3.) Concerning non-Auxlangs, again, what's of note?   There's Marc
> Okrand,
> Tolkien, maybe the Blade movies can get a mention, maybe Magma, the new
> Star
> Trek, or Star Trek in general, but what else?
Nadsat, from "A Clockwork Orange"? An a posteriori language, but still it has
been worked on. There is also D'ni, the language in the game series Myst. Don't
forget Tenctonese, the language of the aliens of Alien Nation. Go to the
Langmaker site at http://www.langmaker.com/db/mdl_index_languagetype.htm and
look for "professional fictional languages". You will find about all conlanging
that has been done for books, movies, series and/or videogames.

   How well, for example,
> is
> Amman Iar known?   Are there any a priori conlangs created just for fun
> that
> have gotten any attention whatsoever aside from the ones mentioned?
Well, a priori I don't know, but for a posteriori languages you should then
mention Europanto, which was basically creating for fun by people who never
seriously thought they would make an IAL :)) .

Christophe.

http://rainbow.conlang.free.fr

Take your life as a movie: do not let anybody else play the leading role.