At 2:11 pm +0100 12/5/02, Tim May wrote:
>Raymond Brown writes:
[snip]
> > I think we need to extend the 'Gnoli tiangle' into the 'Conlang
>quadrilateral:
> > artlang
> > / \
> > / \
> > / \
> > / \
> > loglang auxlang
> > \ /
> > \ /
> > \ /
> > \ /
> > engelang
> >
>
>The problem with a quadrilateral is that it makes the qualities into a
>pair of polar opposites, and I'm not clear if this is your aim.
You are correct on both points.
[snip]
>
>I'm not sure what you mean by an "engelang" - "engineered" to me
Not my terminology - you must ask And.
[snip]
>
>Beyond "auxlang" "artlang" "loglang" I can see two main other points -
>"experimental" (which you've already mentioned) and "ideological"
>(something like Suzette Haden Elgin's Ladaan - I'm not aware of any
>other examples worked out into viable conlangs, except maybe Toki
>Pona, which at least _calls_ itself ideological, and maybe lojban's
>commitment to cultural neutrality comes under this heading also).
Laadan is possibly covered by And's definition of 'engelang' below. As
for "cultural neutrality", that surely is claimed by most auxlang designers.
>Artlang, also, seems to cover a wide area - most artlangs are natural
>languages spoken by fictional people, but this doesn't seem to be
>inherent in the name "artlang", so maybe something like
>"pseudonatlang" is required.
'artlang' may not be the best label, but it's probably been around too long
now to change.
-----------------------------------------------------------------
At 6:33 pm +0100 12/5/02, And Rosta wrote:
>Ray:
[snip]
>> 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:
[snip]
>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
Yes, I like that. It keeps things simple. Tim May has rightly pointed out
the pitfalls of a quadrilateral model. You're redefining the Gnoli
triangle is neater. I suppose we must now call it the Gnoli-Rosta triangle
:)
>Engelangs can be broken up into further dimensions, according to
>the specific design goals -- logicality, nonambiguity, brevity,
>learnability, smallness, etc. etc.
I think conlangs with an 'ideological' goal like Laadan would fit here also.
[snip]
>>
>> 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.
Right.
---------------------------------------------------------------
At 8:24 pm +0100 12/5/02, And Rosta wrote:
[snip]
>
>Claudio Gnoli, librarian by profession, conlanger and zoologist by
>calling, inventer of Liva (findable by googling), still around in
>the land of the living but not on Conlang.
..which IMO is a loss to Conlang.
Ray.
=======================================================
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.
GEORGE STEINER.
=======================================================