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

Raymond Brown writes:
 > 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.
 >

It is , but perhaps this is only incidental.  No, that's not right, I
mean - these are two features on different levels that correlate.

 > >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.
 > -----------------------------------------------------------------

I certainly wouldn't throw it out, but I might like to refine its
meaning, or introduce accepted subcategories.


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.  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.

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.)

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.


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.

Reply