Re: Has anyone made a real conlang?

Hey.

A lot of people seem to be upset by Andrew's post. For what it's worth,
here's my take on some of the issues.

1.  Andrew is not a native speaker of English, though his command of
the language seems to be excellent. I *am* a native speaker, and I
can't manage to avoid giving offense all of the time, especially in
this medium. He said that his intent was not to give offense, so I take
him at his word. Perhaps we all should.

2.  It is clear that Andrew has a different definition in mind for the
term "conlang". That shouldn't be surprising; I'm sure that we all have
different ideas of what a conlang is. Because his definition is
different from mine does not mean that he is wrong or that I am right.
Whether Miapimoquitch is or is not a conlang according to his
definition doesn't matter much to me -- I'm not asking for his approval
for my own project. It is interesting as a footnote to compare
definitions, though; I might learn something which will help me
appreciate Ygyde in a new light.

3.  I have never been interested in conlangs (aux- or art-) as means of
communication. I also have never been interested in natural languages
as means of communication. I am interested in the structure of
language, primarily phonology (and by phonology I mean not a list of
sounds, but a description of the interaction of those sounds). I have
enjoyed reading posts discussing the structure of Lojban, Glosa (stop
snickering!), Interlingua, Novial, and yes, even Esperanto. I have not
enjoyed reading posts which extoll the virtues of any language as means
of communication, because I'm not interested in languages as means of
communication. If Ygyde (for example) has interesting structures, I'll
be happy to read about it. But if all it has to recommend it is that it
is an excellent means of communication, it will not interest me. I
certainly wouldn't feel the need to be rude about any such posts which
come my way; I do have a delete key, after all.

4.  The ability of a language to be used as an adequate vehicle for
"simple everyday communication" will depend greatly on the culture in
which that language is embedded. Since I am not interested in languages
as means of communication, this is a question which doesn't really come
up for me. However, there are lexical problems which everyone must
confront. So if Miapimoquitch is really supposed to be the language of
a preliterate puebloan culture, the real question for me is whether it
can reflect that cultural milieu -- not whether I can use Miapimoquitch
to ask where the bathroom is or if I have anything to declare at
customs. If the purpose of Ygyde (for example) is to provide the means
to ask those kinds of questions, that's fine; it's obviously a language
embedded in a different culture than Miapimoquitch and its vocabulary
will reflect that. I am certainly not going to pass judgement on it
based on the vocabulary it possesses. If, however, it doesn't conform
to the design goals of its designer, then there is something to
critique.

There's probably more, but I'm going to get back to work now.

Dirk
--
Dirk Elzinga
Dirk_Elzinga@byu.edu

"I believe that phonology is superior to music. It is more variable and
its pecuniary possibilities are far greater." - Erik Satie

Reply