Re: Let's return to conlanging (was: Li Lingue Modern)

Logical Language Group wrote:

> I will comment, here, from what I think a different perspective.  The
> question
> really comes down to "what is 'conlanging'?"
[snip useful history of Conlang]

> While respecting those whose interest in conlangs is artistic, per the
> secret
> vise, I have posted before that I don't think that a language design
> or project
> is really a language.  A work of art maybe, but so much of what "is" a
> language
> seems missing.  I have scorned, often not too diplomatically,
> languages that
> are created in a couple of months by a single individual as not really
> being
> languages.  I am not particularly inclined to withdraw those
> arguments, but I
> have come to understand that people interested in that sort of thing
> do not
> want to hera that sort of criticism %^).
Well, it's no wonder, since saying that a conlang is not a language
hardly counts as constructive criticism - at least if you leave it at
that.  When you talk about scorning "languages created in a couple
of months by a single individual", I hope you mean proposed
auxlangs.  Such criticism of an artlang would be quite misplaced,
and I could understand why the target of such criticism would respond
with hostility.


> But in avoiding criticism of language projects that are not intended
> to go
> beyond that stage, I think that CONLANG is missing discussions of just
> how a
> language DOES (or should) go beyond that stage.
What you seem to be saying here (correct me if I'm wrong) is that
artlangers like myself should be required to defend the 'viability'
of our projects by answering criticisms as to their learnability and
usefulness in 'real-life' communication.  I'm sorry, but I think
that's unreasonable.  I understand that the question of how a
conlang can/should transition from the design stage to actual
use is important to you.  But to criticise the rest of us for not
sharing your concerns is unfair.[snip again]

> I miss these things, but realize that people developing conlang
> *projects*
> are not really going to be interested in them, because they do not
> expect
> people to learn and use their design, but rather to "appreciate" it in
> the
> artistic sense.  But the militant anti-AUXLANG attitude of some on the
> list
> leads me to feel that they think this kind of discussion doesn't
> belong
> here at all - that the moment a conlang ceases to be a theoretical and
>
> non-utilitarian project, it should be exiled to AUXLANG, or its
> proponents should form their own list (which most such languages have
> by that
> stage of development).
If some auxlangers have been made to feel unwelcome on this list,
that's a real shame, since Conlang benefits, I think, from the
interaction
between people of both 'camps', artlangers and auxlangers.  But it seems

to me that there will always be certain extra-linguistic interests and
issues
which are shared by members of one camp, but which members of the
other camp find completely irrelevant.  It is unreasonable for
artlangers to
expect auxlangers to participate in threads dealing with general
world-building
issues (e.g. invented calendars, to take a recent example).  And it is
just as unreasonable for auxlangers to expect artlangers to participate
in
threads dealing with issues of auxlang propagation and pedagogy.

It's true that some auxlangers have been criticised for discussing
"real-world use" issues, and have been asked to take their threads
off-list.
But it's also true that some artlangers have been criticised for
discussing
world-building, and have been asked to take *their* threads off-list.
The question is:  Are these issues intrinsic or extrinsic to the task
of Language Design (which is what auxlangers and artlangers share
in common)?.  In my opinion, both issues are intrinsic:  Building
a convincing and internally consistent imaginary world is vital to
creating a good artlang, while considering how best to transition from
the design stage to real-world use is essential to creating a good
auxlang.
As such, both issues should be fair game for discussion on Conlang.

Matt.