Theiling Online    Sitemap    Conlang Mailing List HQ   

Re: Has anyone made a real conlang?

From:Christophe Grandsire <christophe.grandsire@...>
Date:Tuesday, April 22, 2003, 12:10
En réponse à Andrew Nowicki :


>Those who do not have a computer cannot use this mailing list.
Ever heard of cybercafes?
>Making a web file and sending it to a website is a trivial task. >You can make a text file if you cannot make an HTML file.
And explain me first why we *should* do that. Why is every conlanger obliged to put his/her whole conlang vocabulary on the web just to satisfy you? And HTML may be trivial for you, but most people find it difficult. Live with it, not everyone is a genius like you...
>I spent a few hours comparing the stated vocabulary >size with the one posted on the web.
And forgot that most often websites are not uptodate and even when they are most people just don't bother put the full vocabulary on the site (what for? It's not like thousands of people are gonna want to learn those languages. It's not even a goal for us!). In most cases, the figures at Langmaker are actually *more* valid than the ones you estimated from the websites.
> I did not count >every word, just made a rough estimate.
Still, you forgot everything those people *didn't* put on the web, and still didn't give any reason why we should do that. A lexicon is the worse way to present a language on the web you know, because a language is much more than a lexicon, and we prefer to work on the meat of things rather than the skin. By the way, your metaphor of the car was completely wrong: in a language, the engine is the grammatical structure, while the body is the vocabulary, not the other way round.
>Computer programs are called may names, depending on >their size and purpose. An operating system is bigger than >most application programs, which are still bigger than >functions (subroutines). There are games, spreadsheets, >and many other programs. These names are used because they >are useful.
But you keep on comparing uncomparable things. We already have enough terms for conlangs. If we needed more, we would invent more. The simple fact that we don't invent more shows that we don't need more.
> I do believe there is need to describe conlangs >more precisely than just artlangs and IALs.
But the descriptive words exist, you just never took the time to listen to us use them. But if you had read our posts on this list rather than arrogantly decided that we couldn't say anything that can ever interest you, you would have seen that we refer to conlangs as whether they are a priori or a posteriori, naturalistic or not (and naturalistic and a posteriori are not synonyms). We have terms like artlang, auxlang, engelang and a few others. other ways to classify conlangs all refer to the grammatical structure, and as such don't need specific words. We just use the same as used for natlangs. but what you want, classifying conlangs by the size of their lexicon, is not only useless, but it's also misleading! You forget one very important thing: vocabulary doesn't make a language. A lexicon without a grammar is not a language. It doesn't even have the potential to become a language(without engine, a car has no potential to become a car, as you rightly said). You don't learn a language by reading a dictionary. You need to learn the grammar first. But a grammar without a vocabulary *is* a language, in the sense that it *has* the potential to become a language (when you have the engine, the wheels (including the steering wheel) and the frame, not much more is needed to have the car run).
>By the way, I have not accused anyone of anything.
Yes you did. It's not by insulting people and then say that you're not insulting anyone that you make the insult less important. You just show that you refuse to take responsibility for your acts. Grow up a little!
>Of course, not, but I dear to say (no matter how unpopular >it is) that most people I know are either arrogant and have >short attention span.
I can imagine. People of the same kind attract each other. That's also why you are not so welcome here. Unlike you and your acquaintances, we are usually pretty humble people, and we have a very long attention span. That's what makes this list so special. We just have little patience for know-it-alls who pretend to know all the answers and want to impose their views to everyone around (no wonder you find people around you to have a short attention span. Never thought the problem could actually come from *you* rather than them?).
> People in general cannot work as >team members. You can either have them on your throat >or under your heel. Internet could be used for many exciting >projects if people were more cooperative.
Begin yourself by showing the example then. Until now, the only thing you've showed to us is that you're incredibly uncooperative and refuse to take seriously anyone whose opinion is just slightly different from yours. So you're noone to dare talk about cooperation. Christophe Grandsire. http://rainbow.conlang.free.fr You need a straight mind to invent a twisted conlang.

Reply

Joe Fatula <fatula3@...>