Re: Linguistic knowledge and conlanging (was Explaining linguistic...)

Hallo!

On Fri, 23 Jul 2004 09:08:42 -0700,
Gary Shannon <fiziwig@...> wrote:

> Here's my goofy take on linguistic terms and
> conlanging...
>
> I have no formal linguistic training and I'd just as
> soon keep it that way.
I also have no formal training in linguistics (some people
on this list might be surprised about this ;-)), though
I have worked my way through a handful of linguistics textbooks
and even a few monographs I found of interest for my conlanging
projects.  My linguistic knowledge is quite patchy, though;
for example, I know how to write a grammar sketch or how to
apply the comparative method; but my knowledge of most fields
of applied linguistics is close to nil.

>       To my warped way of thinking
> it's more interesting to build a conlang knowing
> nothing about how languages are built.  After all,
> every natlang in existence, past and present, was
> initially created by people who didn't know the first
> thing about linguistics.
True.

> Linguistics is NOT the study of how to build a
> language, but is, rather, the study of how to describe
> languages taht spontanesouly came into existence and
> evolved in the absence of any planning or design.
Yes.  Linguistics, as it is taught in universities, is not
about *building* languages.  It is about understanding
how languages work - languages that are usually the product
of cultural evolution.

> That's how I like to build my conlangs; just forging
> ahead blindly, without plan or design, to create
> something that can only be described with lingusitic
> terms AFTER it has reached a certain level of
> maturity.
Well, I think some linguistic knowledge is indeed helpful
in conlanging, but the bearing linguistic education has
on conlanging should not be overrated either.
People who don't know a shoot about linguistics often create
either relexes of some language they are familiar with
(either their native language or one learned in school),
or they come up with some kind of bizarre, unnatural, unworkable
scheme (e.g., a philosophical language).  But I have seen
excellent conlangs made by amateur linguists and pathetic ones
made by professionals (and also excellent conlangs made by
professionals, and pathetic conlangs made by amateurs).

> The best conlangs are the result of the same kind of
> linguistic chaos and anarchy that forged all the
> natlnags.  IMHO. :)
I think it cannot be generalized either way.

Greetings,

Jörg.

Reply