Re: Joseph Smith the Conlanger?
|From:||Muke Tever <hotblack@...>|
|Date:||Wednesday, March 16, 2005, 0:37|
Chris Bates <chris.maths_student@...> wrote:
>> or 2) an unofficial script invented for a natlang that already has a
> How do you define official? No one own's a language except possiblythe sum of
> all its speakers, so I can't see how any script can beofficial or unofficial
> since there isn't an organization with the right
> to bless it. Even the various language academies set up by governmentsdon't own
> the language, all they do is attempt and fail to imposecentral control.
The scope of "official" is not "all speakers of a language", but under
the scope of the instituting _office_, e.g., country, corporation, church,
language academy, educational institution, whatever. People not recognizing
such authorities may do what they like--perhaps not without consequences--but
what they then do on their own is the essence of unofficiality. [I should
probably make explicit that I mean nothing derogatory by "unofficial" here.]
> I would define a conscript as any script invented by one or a small
> number of people rather than a script which evolved through the use of a
> large number of people, whether that script is intended for a natlang or
> not, and whether that natlang already has a script or not. So basically
> I agree with the previously suggested definition.
Though by such a definition Hangul is a conscript, and I'm not sure I'd
agree with that. I think there has to be some point at which a conscript
can become a natscript, similar to how a [re-]constructed language becomes
a natlang by acquiring native speakers.
FrathWiki, a conlang and conculture wiki: