Re: Joseph Smith the Conlanger?

Hi!

caeruleancentaur <caeruleancentaur@...> writes:
>...
> IMO, all scripts are conscripts.
>...
That's no helpful thing to define.  By 'conscript' people definitely
means something *not* like Latin or Hangul or Cherokee.  So to be of
any use, a definition of 'conscript' should be more along the lines of
general understanding in the conlang community.

This is a bit like the question of the borderline between natlang and
conlang in cases like Indonesion, etc.

Personally, I do distinguish 'Fukhian' (a conscript) -- from 'Hangul'
(a 'natscript').

I will not give a definition now, since it does not seem to be easy,
but just say that a sensible definition does distinguish 'conscript'
from 'script'.

Some properties that mightbe taken into consideration for a
definition of 'conscript' would be:

   - no. of schools that teach the script to children
     (the expectation would be than 'conscripts' are taught in
     relatively few schools.  However, natscripts may very well
     not be taught)

   - no. of newspapers that use the script

   - whether the script was primarily invented for a natlang
     (natlang/conlang distinction to be neglected here and moved
     to another definition session)

   - whether the newspapers that use the script are written in a
     conlang or in a natlong

   - more generally: the amount people that use the script

   - the amount of time the script is regularly used by people


PS: The mailinglist about conscripts is called neographies.  However,
    conscript is the more widely used term here.