Theiling Online    Sitemap    Conlang Mailing List HQ   

Re: My Three Assertions

From:Trent Pehrson <pehr099@...>
Date:Friday, February 25, 2005, 14:28
>"constructed" ... "having been constructed" = "having been deliberately
put
>together / shaped / engineered with the goal of making a language";
whether
>it's from scratch or from existing language(s) doesn't matter here. >No, there aren't characteristics inherent to conlangs AFTER their >construction that seperate them from natlangs. Theoretically it should be >possible to make an *a-posteriori* conlang that passes for a natlang. But >I'd say there are plenty of a-priori and semi-a-priori langs that wear
their
>constructedness visibly. >However, having been deliberately constructed (usually by one person) is >itself a very different way for a language to come about than having >developed over generations of speech without deliberate creation. THAT is >the unique characteristic.
To me, this is not a phenomenon unique to languages designated as conlangs. There are many instances of intentional language creation and permutation throughout recorded history-- prescriptivist reforms, creation of new writing systems and other varying degrees of intentional contrivance by groups or individuals. Since even a designated, a posteriori conlang is a contrived permutation of a designated natlang, the distinction does not hold for me. An intentional permutation is an intentional permutation. *Every* language has degrees of intentional permutation. As to your thought on a priori conlang genesis being a distinguishing feature, I find this argument to be invalid as well (And perhaps this should have been my fourth assertion). I do not believe that an a priori language can exist. All language stems from language -- even so called L1 comes from experience with the linguistic context of the learner. Hence, even if it is only within the mind of one individual all language is a posteriori. Just my opinion :). T. Pehrson