Re: Has anyone made a real conlang?

Andrew Nowicki wrote:

> 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.
If that's the opinion you have then you must not look at the
websites of the folks who regularly post on this list.  A cursory
look at the websites linked to in posts or .sig files will show
languages with complete grammars and enormous vocabularies.  While
my own Singala is quite humble in comparison to some of the mighty
works discussed here, I contend that I would be able to use it for
anything I might desire.

> I doubt a language can be used for simple everyday communication
> unless it has a vocabulary of at least 1000 words.
Well, I just checked the file, and my fiancée's Ninfeano languages
has almost twice that (1797 words).  I think the total number of
Talossan vocabulary has upwards of 5-digits (10,000 or more??).

> Has  anyone in this mailing list made a real conlang?
Once again, take a look at the websites and decide for yourself.
Mau Rauszer's Long Wer is one of my recent favourites!

> 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.
Not so; as ringleader of the East Asian Conlangs workshop and a
member of most of the other workshops, I can say that I have
personally benefited from the input and interest of others.  Roger
Mills has been too kind in giving me the benefit of his professional
experience and knowledge in the creation of my Singala.

> reason for the difference is that the Linux programs
> are tools, while the languages discussed here are as
> useful as the pyramids. The main purpose of the
> pyramid is to say "My unique pyramid is sky high
> and made of white marble. I do not share it with anyone."
I respectfully and politely must ask you to consider that you've
missed the point.  I think to most of us these are works of art
(Mau's work certainly is, and I consider Ninfeano and my own Singala
to be works of art).  So here we get in to the question of whether
or not art must be "useful" (a tool) or is it useful in itself?  Not
prepared to go in to art axiology right now, but I must insist that
art and personal expression are lofty enough aims.  After all, isn't
that what language is: personal expression?

Cheerfully submitted for your consideration,
Eamon
____________________________________________________
Robert Eamon Graham              robertg@knology.net

Anugraha banana shundarata dengan bisri bastu-bastu.

                                -- U2, "Grace"

Replies