Re: introduction Middelsprake : artlangs & conlangs vs. auxlangs

Tom wrote:
<<
To me, an ArtLang is an ARTificial LANGuage constructed for ARTistic
reasons/uses.

All FictLangs are ArtLangs, by that definition.  But note, not all
ArtLangs need be FictLangs.
 >>

Here's an on-topic/off-topic question: How exactly do we all
define these terms?  I've never used "artlang" as a contraction
of "artificial language".  I see "artificial language" as referring
to an auxiliary language, exclusively (not because of what the
words entail, but because of how the term "artificial language"
is used).

Furthermore, what *is* a fictlang?  In a lecture I gave to an
undergrad. typology class at UCSD, I said that a fictlang had
to involve a conculture and/or a conhistory.  So a fictlang is
not necessarily a lostlang (you can have a fictlang that is not
intended to fool anyone into believing it did or does exist),
but is more specific than an artlang (which need not have a
history or culture attached to it).

Am I essentially agreeing with and restating what Tom wrote,
except disagreeing with the use of the term "artificial language"?
Also, is there a Wiki article somewhere that has these terms
defined?  Seems like there should be if there isn't.

-David
*******************************************************************
"sunly eleSkarez ygralleryf ydZZixelje je ox2mejze."
"No eternal reward will forgive us now for wasting the dawn."

-Jim Morrison

http://dedalvs.free.fr/