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

On Sun, 1 Nov 1998 08:29:10 -0500, Logical Language Group
<lojbab@...> wrote:

>I have gotten the sense over the years and especially since AUXLANG was
>created, that many/most people on the list think that CONLANG is only
>for language design, for talking about languages still in their earliest
>phase of discussion/proposal.  A language whose design is "done" like
>Lojban's seems unwelcome.  I'm not surethat anyone SAYS this, but the =
attitude
>still comes across by the way people respond to certain kinds of posts, =
of the
>sort that Lojban discussions are likely to take.  At best unfriendly, =
more
>often, simply ignored, merely acknowledged and not followed up.
I don't think that Lojban or any other "finished" language (Esperanto,
Volap"uk, etc.) are considered unwelcome here, but I don't often have =
much
to say about them. Lojban is an interesting language, and I wish I had =
the
time to learn it, but I've been busy at work lately and had to cut back =
on
spare-time activities. (I've also given up Japanese for now. I just don't
have the time, even though it's an interesting language.)

>doing a conlang anyway" sort.  What I don't see, and what might be =
relevant,
>are discussions of what we did right and wrong in developing Lojban, and=
 what
>lessons were learned that might or might not be edifying to those doing =
other
>projects.  This type of posting was common a long time ago, and I think =
not
>solely with regard to Lojban, but to other completed conlang designs.
That would be an interesting discussion, and we could all learn from the
history of previous efforts. Our goals in developing languages may be
different, but we all run into similar problems such as the "pretty =
little
girls' school" issue.

>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 %^).
It depends on what your definition of "language" is. If it has a =
phonology,
morphology, and syntax, however crude, I call it a language. Even if no =
one
actually uses it for communication, if it's designed for a fictional
setting, it has its own fictional speakers, and if it's designed for
personal use, then it serves a different purpose. Certainly, it takes =
more
than a couple of months to develop a fully functional language, but
fictional languages don't have to be fully functional. I don't think it's
any more valid to "criticize" a language for not being complete (if that
isn't a goal of the language) than it would be to criticize a haiku for =
not
being a 1000-page novel.