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

Ray:
> >We have artlangs
> >and conlangs and auxlangs
>
> Hang on a mo' - they are _all_ conlangs, are they not?
Indubitably.

> 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:
>                          artlang
>                            / \
>                           /   \
>                          /     \
>                         /       \
>                  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).
I think the Gnoli triangle would be better if 'loglang' were replaced
by 'engelang' -- at the time Claudio defined the triangle, the
distinction was not apparent, and the term 'engelang' had not been
created.

The three poles/apices can then be defined in terms of goals:

artlang: purely aesthetic design goals
engelang: objective relatively quantifiable *design* goals
auxlang: goal of being used as an international lingua franca

Engelangs can be broken up into further dimensions, according to
the specific design goals -- logicality, nonambiguity, brevity,
learnability, smallness, etc. etc.

> 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
> center,
I would locate BrSc very much at the Engelang corner. To properly
characterize BrSc in comparison to other Englangs would involve
unpacking 'Engelang' into a list of specific goals (and taking into
account their relative importance within the conlang).

--And.
>
> >...............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?
It was me that initiated the debate about the category, but (iirc) John
Cowan who came up with the term itself.

> I think we need to extend the 'Gnoli tiangle' into the 'Conlang quadrilateral:
>                          artlang
>                            / \
>                           /   \
>                          /     \
>                         /       \
>                  loglang        auxlang
>                        \        /
>                         \      /
>                          \    /
>                           \  /
>                         engelang
As I say above, I think it is better to treat Loglang as a subtype
of Engelang. Likewise, Artlang could further be subdivided into, say,
'naturalistic' and 'alien' poles.

> > 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.
Auxlanghood is very much a goal of Loglan and Lojban, though it was
not an important *design* goal.

> >The languages
> >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  :)
I think this misses the distinction between artlangs and engelangs,
which is analogous to that between 'artistic' and 'functional'
objects -- sculptures versus chairs, say. It is possible to design
a chair with great artistry, but one is still serving functional
objectives in a way that the artist sculptor is not. To locate
a conlang away from the Artlang pole is not say that its design is
executed without artistry.

--And.

Replies