Re: Joseph Smith the Conlanger?
|From:||Henrik Theiling <theiling@...>|
|Date:||Monday, March 14, 2005, 16:31|
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'
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'
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.