Re: Conlang labels (wasR: Futurese, Chinese, Hz of NatLangs, etc.)
| From: | And Rosta <a-rosta@...> |
|---|
| Date: | Tuesday, May 14, 2002, 23:03 |
|---|
Tim May:
> And Rosta writes:
> > 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).
> >
> If we're talking about classification systems in general, I agree.
> Most conlangs are classifiable as loglangs, auxlangs or artlangs.
It's much truer to say that most conlangs are classifiable as engelangs,
auxlangs or artlangs. A loglang is understood to be a language whose
primary concern is with logic, and among all conlangs I know of, only
the Loglans and Liva really fit that bill.
> But
> if we're using a triangle, I find these poles suboptimal. A triangle
> should ideally encompass all possible conlangs within its area, and
> it's my belief that there are conlangs which cannot be described
> through any combination of auxlang, loglang, artlang (unless you
> stretch the definitions of these such that they become
> counterintuitive).
I very much encourage you to devise triangles to achieve these goals,
and will study your efforts with great interest. But a triangle has
many uses, and these uses include the use it is put to in the
Gnoli triangle. Here, the triangle takes the three main conlang
categories as its vertices, while the space along the sides and
within the triangle models both overlapping category membership
and the relative importance of those categories in categorizing
the conlang.
There is no claim that this particular triangle can describe every
conlang, though I cannot off the top of my head think of any
conlangs which cannot reasonably be placed somewhere on it.
> > > 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.
> >
> Well, I'm not convinced. If you design a can opener, you hope to
> improve on existing models on aesthetic or utilitarian grounds,
Not necessarily. When I was a child I would design castles, without
aiming to improve on existing castles on aesthetic or utilitarian
grounds. However, my conlanging does aim to improve on existing
languages on aesthetic and utilitarian grounds. But within your
triangle, this still leaves me at the Artistic corner, if any.
> or
> perhaps if you're an inventor to experiment with a radical innovation
> and see how it works.
>
> Your language may be "for its own sake", but if you're anything like
> me, this can really be seen in terms of providing you with a) an
> aesthetically pleasing conlang, and b) an opportunity to experiment
> with various linguistic features. Perhaps your motivation is
> radically different to mine, but I find it hard to imagine anyone
> producing a personal conlang for reasons other than a combination of
> aesthetics and personal research. (Note that these may apply equally
> to the process of creation as to the finished product, if that's
> causing any misunderstanding).
If I design a bicycle that goes faster than any other, with no goal
or purpose than to design a bicycle that goes faster than any other,
is aesthetics my reasons for doing so? If Yes, then okay; I differ
from you in my understanding of the term 'aesthetics', but I then
find your remarks about conlanging to be true.
> > > 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.
> >
> May I understand what you consider to be the essential definition of
> "artlang"? Perhaps I have misunderstood how the term is generally
> applied.
I didn't mean that you misunderstood 'artlang'. What I meant is that
if it the term were incorporated into your classificatory system, it
would presumably be defined by that system, whereas it already comes
with an established definition extrinsic to your classificatory
system.
> > > 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.
> >
> Well, as I said, I do prefer the first triangle (see also below). But
> I'm not sure that I agree with you that the distinction between
> experimentation and aesthetics is more a matter of purpose than the
> distinction between abstraction and fictionality. Fictional languages
> must in some sense aim to emulate natlangs, and their purpose is to
> form part of a work of art that extends beyond the language.
Livagian, my own conlang, has imaginary speakers, is spoken in an
imaginary country, etc., yet it does not aim to emulate natlangs
(and this might be even truer of fictional alien langs), and nor
is its purpose to form part of a work of art that extends beyond
the language. For one thing, it is art only in that very general
sense of 'product of nonutilitarian creativity'. For another thing,
and more pertinently, the fictional context is not the purpose of
Livagian.
> Abstract
> languages, whether indended for aesthetic enjoyment, a learning
> exercise, or both, have no purpose beyond themselves.
Agreed. But you wrongly construe a conlang's fictional context as
its purpose. This might be true for Klingon, but not for all.
> Possibly "purpose" is not the best word to describe the differences
> between these apices, but I still feel that we're comparing like with
> like on both these triangles to a greater extent than on the Gnoli
> triangle.
I would agree with you if you were correct about fictional contexts
providing a purpose.
> Interestingly, it's also possible to divide the second into languages
> without speakers (abstract) and those with real (practical) or
> imaginary (fictional) speakers.
Now this strikes me as more valid, though there are snags. How do
you distinguish between a pure IAL design, and an IAL project that
aspires to have speakers but doesn't have any? You also need to
consider 'personal languages' spoken by the creator without any
wish for there to be a larger speech community.
> I've decided, now, that the reason I dislike this triangle is that
> fictionality is more or less a binary quality. A language can be
> fictional and also practical or abstract, perhaps, but it can't really
> be "somewhat fictional" - you've either defined fictional speakers or
> not. This isn't true of practicality, as many people have made
> conlangs designed for optimal usefulness as an IAL without seriously
> intending such use.
It is not inherent in the triangle notation that deviance from a
vertex denote the degree to which a conlang has a given property,
though you can use the notation in that way, of course.
> Aesthetics and experimentality will have some
> impact on almost any conlang.
Aesthetics, for sure. As for experimentality, I don't see it, though
maybe I haven't understood what you mean by it.
> > > 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.
>
> I agree, particularly as the poles of the triangle are intended less
> as categories than as reference points.
>
>
> Incidentally, it struck me that if the extent to which a conlang is
> described by a pole is expressed as the distance from that pole, these
> shouldn't really be triangles at all.
[cf. my remarks above noting that triangles are not necessarily to be
construed thus]
> They should be... there must be
> a name for this shape, but I don't know it. The points of an
> equilateral triangle, with each two joined by a circular arc with
> origin at the third point. An interesting shape - constant diameter
> without constant radius. Thing's'll roll quite smoothly on them. But
> as they're a little tricky to draw in ASCII art, I'll stick with
> triangles in mail. :)
I'm afraid my mental geometry is too weak to visualize what you
describe... I hope I'll still be able to understand your cerebrations!
--And.