Re: Has anyone made a real conlang?

Andrew Nowicki wrote:
> Perhaps there is a need for a new name for something that
> is bigger than an alphabet, smaller than a language, and
> made purely for fun... What about "funlang".
Umm ... how about CONLANG?  If you feel the need, you could subdivide
that category, to talk about small conalngs, large conlangs, usable
conlangs, etc.  But to just dismiss an already-accepted, commonly-used,
term, redefining it at whim, is just foolishness.

> Good point. Lone mavericks make inventions and discoveries.
> The word committee is almost a cuss word, but the idea
> of people brainstorming and working together is not totally
> absurd. The problem is that most people are arrogant and
> have short attention span.
The problem is that for most of us, our conlangs are art.  Can you think
of a single great work of art that was teamwork?  Shakespeare did not
work with other playwrights, nor did Bach work with other composers.
While I can't pretend to be the Shakespeare or Bach of conlangs by any
stretch of the imagination, it still holds that art is generally
solitary.

> Most wild species are parasites. Humans emulate nature...
I'm fairly certain that the percentage of species that are parasites is
well below 50%.

--
"There's no such thing as 'cool'.  Everyone's just a big dork or nerd,
you just have to find people who are dorky the same way you are." -
overheard
ICQ: 18656696
AIM Screen-Name: NikTaylor42

Replies