Re: introduction Middelsprake : artlangs & conlangs vs. auxlangs
| From: | Stephen Mulraney <ataltane.conlang@...> |
|---|
| Date: | Wednesday, June 29, 2005, 5:18 |
|---|
On 6/28/05, tomhchappell <tomhchappell@...> wrote:
> Ingmar does seem to be involved with an AuxLang project; but
> MiddelSprake is not it.
>
> I think that those things about MiddelSprake that Ingmar has chosen
> to post here, I would welcome here.
>
> Is that about what most others think? Or does it need modification?
IIRC, under the ancien regime, discussion of auxlangs was not forbidden,
only promotion of them as auxlangs. That is, discussion of their technical
details was allowed. I'm not aware that any intentional change in policy
has occurred, though the occasional instances of auxlang-related trouble
sometimes has the result of suggesting to people that discussion of
auxlangs themselves should be forbidden. IMHO, this doesn't make a
lot of sense. For one things, auxlangs stripped of their politics are as
interesting as other conlangs. And Ingmar certainly seems to be capable
of keeping within the allowed region of discussion, even if other auxlang
authors aren't..!
ObConlang: Drat. No activity for a long time...
s.
Replies