Re: POLL: lablang/engelang (clarification)

> Commenting not on the poll but on the definition: 'pot pourri lang'?
> 'salmagundy lang'? I don't see what all these sorts of conlang
> have in common. I mean, you're free to state a definition and seek a
> label for it, but I myself don't perceive any utility in it.
> Another comment: artlangs do not all have naturalistic design goals
> and do not all emulate natlangs. Naturalistic artlangs form a
> subgroup of artlangs; they were rather eloquently described by
> Jesse Bangs in a recent message (of some weeks or months ago).
> All conlangs to some degree emulate natlangs, because of course
> natlangs serve to define language itself, as the prototype if not
> as the limiting case. But what defines artlangs is that their
> methods and purposes are solely artistic; that is, their raison
> d'etre is that of art, and the way they set about achieving their
> goals are guided solely by aesthetics.
hmm, ok. I guess i've never actually known the precise definitions of these
words in the first place, only had a generally good idea. Has anyone
actually sat down and wrote out the precise definitions? I guess a better
definition would be this:

[language term] n. a language with one or more experimental features
(optional: that do not occur in natural languages).

the reason the strange languages would fit in this category is that they
would have features that don't occur in natural languages.

> Lastly, with regard to the question "'lablang' or 'engelang'", I
> say "certainly not 'engelang'", for 'engelang' means an 'engineered
> language', one with explicit design goals such that the degree
> of success in achieving those goals is objectively assessable.
to get a better idea of what exactly is meant by 'engelang', which languages
on this list are categorized that way? and if you have a language that's an
engelang, what's the website?

> I suggest, then, that the discussion about new conlang categories
> and terms for them exclude from consideration the term 'engelang',
> it being a preexisting term with an established definition.
>
> What makes me suddenly burst into on-list activity in these
> threads is that engelangs are my most active area of interest
> within conlanging, but at the same time seem to be sadly lorn
> of any critical mass of interest in them as a genus. Hence I
> feel impelled to curate their study.
>
> --And.
--
Garrett Jones
http://www.alkaline.org

Reply