Re: This is not a conlang.

Adrian Morgan (aka Flesh-eating Dragon) wrote:
> As I've said, my experience is that the mental processes involved in
> generating phonetic gibberish are pretty much identical to the mental
> processes that a musician uses when improvising. The domain just
> happens to be phonetic and not melodic. I love to improvise on my
> electronic piano so I'm very familiar with the process.
...
> I can understand the point of dedicating nonsense syllables to God in
> the same way that one can dedicate music or art or whatever (i.e. as a
> symbol of communication at a level that words cannot, even in
> principle, express) but the idea of a special language capable of
> translation into English strikes me as pointless.
(slightly related:)
On _Pick_of_the_World_ on the BBC World Service this week there was a
poet (I can who works with sound directly.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/worldservice/programmes/pick_world.shtml

Start at 34:45 (the clip is 38:00 long):
http://www.bbc.co.uk/worldservice/ram/pickoftheworld.ram

Infuriatingly, the clip is cut off at the end, but I can remember he has
to write his poetry in IPA, in order to get the details.

--
Simon Richard Clarkstone
s.r.cl*rkst*n*@durham.ac.uk / s*m*n_cl*rkst*n*@hotmail.com
Eye half a spelling chequer / It came with my pea sea. /
It plane lee Marx for my reef-ewe / Miss takes eye can knot sea.