Re: Has anyone made a real conlang?

 --- Andrew Nowicki skrzypszy:

> It seems to me that most of the languages discussed
> in this mailing list are not languages at all, but
> names of languages that exist only in the imagination
> of the person who invented the names.
That is not true. If you care to read the archives, you will find out that
almost each of our languages is a set of grammatical features and words. IMO
the size of the vocabulary doesn't really matter. Personally, I greatly enjoy
the process of word creation, but that is just a matter of taste; others prefer
the creation of mechanisms. H.S. Teoh's Ebisedian, for example, has a
fascinating and wonderfully elaborated grammar, but a relatively small number
of words. But would that disqualify it as a conlang?

> I doubt a language can be used for simple everyday
> communication unless it has a vocabulary of at least
> 1000 words.
I agree.

> Has  anyone in this mailing list made a real conlang?
Oh yes, many of us. Look at langmaker.com, where you can find a huge collection
of conlangs, including some really big ones. You might also try the site of the
different translation relays.
Following your definition that a "real conlang" is a conlang with over one
thousand words, I have three languages that qualify: Hattic, Askaic, and
Wenedyk. All three have ca. 1400 words. I must add that Wenedyk, due to its
character, also has thousands of more words that could be considered "virtual
vocabulary", words that have not officially become part of the lexicon, but
that would be there as soon as I need them. A lot of these words are, of
course, compounds.
Full communicability is not my purpose, though. I don't expect anyone to
actually learn one of my languages, nor would I ever encourage anyone to write
even one single sentence in it. These languages were merely created for my own
personal enjoyment.

At this point I do agree with the others: you seem to confuse artlangs and
auxlangs. Auxlangs are created in order to facilitate international
communication, and therefore must be relatively easy to learn and have a fairly
complete vocabulary. Artlangs however must meet completely different criteria,
that are established solely by their own creators.

> Making a real language is a huge effort, almost like
> building a pyramid. Team work is a necessity, and yet
> there is not much team work among the conlangers.
Here I disagree. In my opinion (which is also the opinion of most of the others
here), a conlang is a thing that inhabits the grey area between art, hobby, and
craft. I completely fail to see why a thing like that should be based on
teamwork - or even, why it would be improved by being the result of teamwork.
Are Michelangelo's works worse because they weren't teamwork?
In my opinion, teamwork doesn't work in art (except for the cinema). Musical
history shows a few examples of compositions that were group projects, but let
me tell you: either the piece sucks, or it is created in such way that each
participant wrote a movement. That might work when the styles of the different
composers are related, but in such case it is not so much a real group project
as a compilation of individual works.

> The main purpose of the pyramid is to say "My unique
> pyramid is sky high and made of white marble.
No, my languages are rather made of wood and wouldn't qualify as pyramids.

> I do not share it with anyone."
I think one of the main purposes of this list *is* the sharing of our conlangs,
no matter their size. Sharing in this sense that we sometimes present some new
features to the group, ask for advises, fish for a compliment (an important
thing, because most of us won't get it anywhere else), participate in a
translation exercise...

Jan

=====
"Originality is the art of concealing your source." - Franklin P. Jones

__________________________________________________
Yahoo! Plus
For a better Internet experience
http://www.yahoo.co.uk/btoffer

Reply