Re: POLL: lablang/engelang (clarification)

Garrett Jones:
> A couple of people have noted that i didn't properly define the definition
> of the term that the poll is for. So, here is an attempt to define it:
>
> [term here] (n) - a language without exclusively naturalistic design goals
> (generally named 'artlangs', which try to emulate 'natlangs') or exclusively
> auxiliary design goals (generally named 'auxlangs', which try to solve
> world's communication problems). Design goals include experimental, logical,
> or engineered design goals. The design goals encompass a wider range of
> goals than artlangs or auxlangs, and can include some artlang/auxlang goals
> (such as being naturalistic and solving communication problems).
>
> languages included in this category would include typologically bizarre
> languages, non-naturalistic languages, barely pronouncable languages,
> languages for computer translation, and logical languages (loglangs).
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.

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.

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.

Reply