Re: Conlang labels (wasR: Futurese, Chinese, Hz of NatLangs, etc.)

Tim May:
> Anyway, I mentioned in my post that it might be worthwhile to create
> two parallel triangles to describe a conlang (parallel in a semantic,
> rather than geometric sense - although one could also say that they're
> seperate because their subjects are orthogonal, which sets up a nice
> contradiction).  Anyway, one of these would describe purpose, the
> other features - or rather, aims.
It is useful to make a distinction between (A) a system that classifies
conlangs according to their properties, so as to insightfully
capture the nature of the conlang and of its relation to other
conlangs, and (B) a system that classifies conlangs into the
natural macroclasses that conlangs tend to cluster into. Both
are interesting and worthwhile, but while (my revision of) the
Gnoli triangle usefully accomplishes (B), you are aiming to do
(A), and my point is that to do (A) is not to discard (B).

> The latter I haven't worked out
> yet, but I've come up with two possible models for the first.
>
>
>                         Experimental
>                              ^
>                             / \
>                            /   \
>                           /     \
>                          /       \
>                         /_________\
>                  Practical       Artistic
>
> Experimental conlangs are those created to explore some feature or
> other.  Most loglangs would tend towards this point, as would
> ideological languages, and any language created simply to see how
> certain linguistic features might interrelate.
>
> Practical conlangs are those intended to be used in the real world,
> including IAL's, machine translation interlinguas, and, well not a lot
> else, but it provides a place for certain things not covered by a
> strict definition of "auxlang".
>
> Artistic conlangs are those created for aesthetic reasons.  I think
> we're all familiar with the general concept of an artlang.
Speaking as an engelanger and loglanger, this classification doesn't
resonante with me. If anything, my purpose (and that of most other
engelangers) would fall at the Artistic apex -- the conlang is an
end in itself, just as someone might design a new can-opener simply
for the sake of designing a new can opener.

Accordingly, 'Artistic' needs to be replaced by 'Own sake' or the
like.

> What these three poles are to be called, I don't know.  Lablang,
> Praclang and Artlang are the best I can think of at present.  (I'll
> post seperately on what I think of the various
> category-name-suggestions floating around.)
It can't be 'artlang', because that term is already in use with
another meaning. 'Lablang' and 'praclang' work.

> I think that's a pretty good triangle for purpose, but as I said
> before, "artlang" or "artistic" covers a lot of ground.  Some might
> therefore prefer
>
>
>                           Abstract
>                              ^
>                             / \
>                            /   \
>                           /     \
>                          /       \
>                         /_________\
>                  Practical       Fictional
>
> which shifts artlangs which are not part of a fictional construct
> (with imaginary speakers, etc) into the same pole as Experimental and
> calls it Abstract.  I think this makes some sense, although I myself
> prefer the first variant.  It's a matter of taste, I guess.
The first triangle distinguishes, according to their purpose, two types
of purposeful conlang from the purposeless (own sake) conlang. The second
triangle distinguishes from practical conlangs two types of nonpractical
conlang, according to the independent criterion of fictionality. The
first triangle is therefore more coherent.

> I don't suggest that these make the categories Artlang, Loglang and
> Auxlang obselete, by any means, I just think they capture the spread
> of possible conlang purposes rather better.  Few languages will be
> well described by any one of these labels, but this is desirable for
> this purpose, as it means they'll be spread out more across the
> triangle.
You are right. The terms 'conlang', 'artlang', 'auxlang', 'loglang'
and 'engelang' all have established definitions, so cannot be
rendered obsolete. But there is still room for a full descriptive
cross-classificatory system, though I don't think special names are
required for all categories defined by such a system.

--And.

Reply