Re: Discuss the features?

At 9:27 pm -0700 7/5/02, Garrett Jones wrote:
[snip]
>> some IALs), I fear I'm (we are) experiencing what once lead to the
>> creation of the AUXLANG list:
>>
>>  "You're wrong!"
>>  "May I know why?"
>>  "Yes, Your Highness..."
>
>yep, yep, yep.
Yep - in discusion of a conlang as a conlang there is give and take; the
conlang's author not infrequently does make modifications.

But the futurese thread - which I was optimistically hoping might have
fizzled out when I was off-line - has IMO become tedious, wearisome and
seems to be getting nowhere except deeper into the same IAL invective &
counter-invective that some of us have experienced too often.  I am truly
sorry I ever got involved with it.

>> I know I can always unsubscribe. But I won't.
>
>same here.
Don't - these things crop up from time to time - but always pass in the end.

>> I know I could just ignore the lines/messages that make me feel
>> discontent/unhappy/sorrow/sad/down (I can't find the right word;
>> perhaps I should coin one? :) and simply delete them. The point is
>> that it bothers me to know that such a discussion is going on here.
>
>agreed.
On an open list like this, it is inevitable that such things happen.
Personally, I'd prefer to keep the list an open forum than try and ban such
discussion entirely.  Trashing mails in a thread one feels unhappy with
seems to me better than exercising some form of list censorship.

>> I wonder if the thread on Futurese wouldn't be more suitable for the
>> AUXLANG list... Or is it [still] within bearable/tolerable limits?
>> I must stress that I am NOT in any way against Futurese. I just
>> wouldn't like quarrels to arise -- at least not like the ones
>> I've read about.
>
>i've been wondering why no one else has brought this up earlier.
'cause we're tolerant.  We don't like the knee-jerk reaction: "That's an
IAL - take it to Auxlang, we don't want it here!"

We've normally taken the view that if someone wants to discuss their
constructed IAL *as a conlang* then it's OK - what we don't want here is
IAL politics.

Discussion of Carlos' con-IAL 'Interlect' did not provoke:
 "You're wrong!"
 "May I know why?"
 "Yes, Your Highness..."

>> I've been reading material and visiting sites concerning conlanging
>> and became aware of the perils of discussing IALs... or could it be
>> that I'm too much affraid [for nothing]?
No, alas, what you say is only too true.  But I would not wish to see a
total ban on con-IALs on this list, as my own opinion is that we should be
open to all & any conlang as a conlang.

>>I've never taken part in
>> such heated discussions (not that I'm willing to), but I believe
>> they don't ever take us anywhere.
>>
>> If I'm wrong, please do correct me.
>> I don't intend to disturb the balance...
In my (too long) experience, sadly you are not wrong.

>on a side note, i want to see more discussion of the grammatical features of
>people's conlangs, but recently i have noticed that most discussions are on
>what does/does not appear in natlangs.
I know - discussions about features of natlangs, especially English, do get
a bit wearisome and wander off the point.  But they're preferable IMO to
IAL flaming; and, of course, if one is "language modelling", then it is
relevant to look at natlang features.  Occasionaly these threads do throw
up interesting ideas.

>Do people discuss their OWN conlangs
>any more?
Yep - I'm awaiting replies to my email about BrSc  :))

Ray.

=======================================================
The median nature of language is an epistemological
commonplace.  So is the fact that every general
statement worth making about language invites a
counter-statement or antithesis.
                                 GEORGE STEINER.
=======================================================