Re: Joseph Smith the Conlanger?
|Date:||Monday, March 14, 2005, 16:02|
"James W." <emindahken@F...> wrote:
>Hm. What distinguishes a "conscript" from a plain regular script?
>The Cherokee syllabary, IIRC, was the work of one man. Hangul was
>done by committee. The only thing differentiating such from
>conscripts is that they've been used communicatively for natlangs.
>Well, in this case the script didn't catch on. It seems like, from
>the description, that it was created by committee, but again, that
>in itself, doesn't make it a con- versus regular script. In my
>opinion, the fact that it is not in use, makes it a conscript. Of
>course, IMO Hangul and Cherokee are conscripts also. They just have
>thousands to millions of current users. :) So I agree with your
>assessment differentiating them from other conscripts.
IMO, all scripts are conscripts. Somewhere along the line, often in
the mists of antiquity, someone (or someones) created the scripts.
Scripts are a deliberate creation of humans, whereas language seems
to be a natural part of humans like eye color, etc.
Who was the first Phoenician to come up with an alphabet? Who
decided to alter it to fit the Greek language? Etc., etc.
So how, then, do we define "conscript"? I define it as a script
created by an individual (maybe several) principally for his or her
or their own amusement. A "regular" script is a creation by someone
(s) for the purpose of communicating with others. Of course, there
will always be examples that fit in both categories.