Theiling Online    Sitemap    Conlang Mailing List HQ   

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' (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.