Conlang labels (wasR: Futurese, Chinese, Hz of NatLangs, etc.)
|From:||Raymond Brown <ray.brown@...>|
|Date:||Sunday, May 12, 2002, 4:29|
At 8:55 am -0400 11/5/02, Jeffrey Henning wrote:
>"J Y S Czhang" <czhang23@...> comunu:
>> - like the "attractively ugly" Klingon or "serious linguistic fun"
>> like Tunu, Vorlin, Ludeiro <sp?> or Dublex. Gotta have fun, ya know...
>> serious fun ;)
>We need a word for languages like Vorlin, Dublex and BrSc.
Maybe - certainly they can't be neatly labelled as artlang, auxlang or loglang.
>We have artlangs
>and conlangs and auxlangs
Hang on a mo' - they are _all_ conlangs, are they not?
For sometime now some of us have been using what And has nicknamed the
'Gnoli triangle' ever since Claudio Gnoli suggested that conlangs tend
toward one of three apexes of:
loglang ------ auxlang
Note that 'loglang' is not the same as the generic noun 'loglan' :)
For example, And's Livagian is a loglang (a language where logic is the
[primary] aim, but it's not, as I understand it, a loglan).
The theory has been that conlangs map onto this triangle. I've often
imagined the BrSc (both BrScA & BrScB :) come more or less in the geometric
>...............but these languages are artauxlangs -- intended
>for use as auxiliary languages for small communities and intentionally not
>intended as the next IAL.
Umm - not sure about 'artauxlang'. This does, maybe, describe Vorlin, but
I'm not so certain about BrSc.
Certainly I have no intention of any conlang I might ever create being
_the_ global IAL. Indeed, I have the gravest doubts that any conlang will
fulfil that role. But if BrSc ever did achieve _a_ global IAL role, I'd be
quite flattered. In my case, the IAL aim is strictly theoretical and
inherited from Speedwords.
Basically, I'm trying to see how one can achieve the two different aims of
speedwords, i.e. to be a (possible) IAL & to serve as an alphabetic
shorthand. I have added to this, because I found its absence troublesome
when I learnt Speedwords, clear segregation of morphemes.
It has seemed to me that this more of an 'experimental language'. Can
these aims be reconciled? I've often wondered if we oughtn't to have a
category of 'experimental languages' (experilangs??) for conlangs such as
Tom Breton's AllNoun. Dublex is, isn't it, an _experiment_ to see if a
language can be expressive with a small vocabulary. Srikanth's Lin is most
certainly an experiment in compactness.
And recently suggested 'engelang' (which I assume is 'engineered lang') -
and certainly I would not argue that BrSc is not engineered. Would that
cover these experimental langs?
I think we need to extend the 'Gnoli tiangle' into the 'Conlang quadrilateral:
> Lojban could fit this category to.
lojban was specifically designed as a loglan, I think, even tho some use
has been made of it, I understand, as an IAL. I'd put it on the longlang ~
auxlang axis but closer to the loglang apex.
>are designed to be easy to learn by others on almost all points but their
>main point: BrSc's brevity, Lojban's logicalness, Dublex's small vocabulary
>(making it harder to learn in some ways, since you need to conceptualize
>compounds for very common words).
I'd still put BrSc right in the middle because I cannot deny it some
artistry; that's why it's taking so long to complete :)
The median nature of language is an epistemological
commonplace. So is the fact that every general
statement worth making about language invites a
counter-statement or antithesis.