Re: Constructive linguistics

>From: "Thomas R. Wier" <trwier@...>
>
>From:    Sai Emrys <saizai@...>
> > So: why not propose a serious study of "constructive linguistics" (as
> > opposed to, e.g. "descriptive linguistics" of the language-savers, and
> > "prescriptive linguistics" of the grammarians)?
>
>I think there are both pragmatic and theoretical problems with this
>idea.  First the theory.  It's not clear exactly what the study of
>conlanging would contribute to the understanding of human languages.
>Natural languages are *far* more complex and intricate than any
>conlang has ever been.  Obviously, I don't think that should stop
>people from creating conlangs, but I am not sanguine about the
>potential of coming up with something that would not immediately
>reveal itself to be artificial.  Humans are too good at creating
>consistent generalizations, and when, rather than being handed a
>complex morass of conflicting generalizations in a real language
>environment, one is creating the whole language ab ovo, it's simply
>too easy to make the language brutally consistent.  (Of course,
>some conlangers *want* consistency, which is their right.) Thus,
>conlangs are more likely to reveal facts about people's attitudes
>towards language than facts about language as such.
>
>Pragmatically, the problem is that it's really hard to get funding
>to research conlangs, and they don't easily fit into any of the
>humanities very well.  What programs do exist are funded mostly
>by IALers like the Esperantists who often have motives other than
>art behind conlanging.  (Also fine, but most conlangs aren't IALs.)
>
>If "constructive" or "creative" linguists has any place in academia,
>it would be from some kind of cross-disciplinary literary angle.
>Afterall, our patron saint is studied this way. :) (No, not Hildegard.)
I'd like to have snipped more than that, but I couldn't do so without
butchering it.

As I see it, any study of constructed languages would fail to be a science
in anything but the most trivial way.  Although it would be possible to
develop testable theories, conlanging is so dependant on fashion that any
such theories would be either grossly simplistic or grossly broad.  A better
paradigm is the study of the fine arts, as that is more or less what we all
think of conlanging as.  Granted, auxlanging doesn't fit neatly in this
category, but it doesn't stray far when you consider some of the uses to
which art has been put over the years.

Consider for a moment a degree in art history with a consentration in
constructed languages.  That, I believe, is a far more reasonable request to
the academe.

Of course, that requires a somewhat more substantional _history_ than
currently exists.  So, get to making those languages, people.

Athey

_________________________________________________________________
Express yourself instantly with MSN Messenger! Download today - it's FREE!
http://messenger.msn.click-url.com/go/onm00200471ave/direct/01/

Reply