Re: Has anyone made a real conlang?

On Fri, 25 Apr 2003 16:25:10 -0700, Joe Fatula <fatula3@...>
wrote:

>From: "Andrew Nowicki" <andrew@...>
>> Unabridged Webster's dictionary defines language as "the words,
>> their pronunciation, and the method of combining them used and
>> understood by a considerable community and established by long usage".
>
>I don't think that's how most people use the word "language".  By that
>definition, ASL (American Sign Language) is not actually a language.  It has
>no pronunciation, and it is not established by long usage.  Hundreds of
>years ago, people were speaking English, as well as Polish, Italian,
>Chinese, and thousands of other languages.  Those are established by long
>usage.  But languages have been created that are not established by long
>usage, just as ASL was when it was created.  Then there are languages like
>Chemehuevi, being discussed on this list, that do not have considerable
>communities who understand them.  Yet it is a language.
The American Heritage definition is better in some ways, but it has its own
problems. "1.a. The use by human beings of voice sounds, and often written
symbols representing those sounds, in combinations and patterns to express
and communicate thoughts and feeling. b. A system of words formed from such
combinations and patterns, used by the people of a particular country or by
a group of people with a shared history or set of traditions."

One problem relevant to this list is that this definition excludes
languages "spoken" by aliens by waving their tentacles, or even human
languages taught to apes and parrots (to the extent they can learn them).
Then you have cases like Japanese, where the relation between "written
symbols" and "voice sounds" is much less straightforward. But in general, I
tend to prefer American Heritage's definitions over Webster's, and this one
just reinforces my opinion. "The words, their pronunciation...."? as if the
written word is the main thing, and the pronunciation secondary?

>The word "language" seems to be reasonably well understood, but harder to
>define.  How's this - "A language is a set of information-bearing parts that
>can be combined in various ways to mean different things, this set being a
>discrete whole that differs from other such sets, and could be taught to
>others who have the capability to use it."?
I think another notable (but not essential?) feature of languages is that
the "information-bearing parts" are composed of a relatively small set of
arbitrary, meaningless bits (phonemes or their equivalent) which are
combined to make up meaningful elements (and can be combined in novel ways
to create new meaningful elements as necessary). I'm not sure if the
ability to be taught is really an essential feature of the definition of
"language" or if the ability to learn is a characteristic of the sorts of
beings capable of using a language.

(ObConlang: Jarda, by the way, has a word for "a being capable of using
language": _rhöl_.)

In brief, what I consider a "language" is anything that has phonology,
morphology, syntax, and a lexicon (or their equivalent, where "phonology"
could be marks on paper, hand positions and motions, patterns of knots, or
the waving of tentacles). A fully functional language needs to be able to
express events remote in time and space, conditionals, questions,
comparisons, and other complex ideas.