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

Quoting "Mark P. Line" <mark@...>:

> Jörg Rhiemeier said:
> >
> > On Fri, 23 Jul 2004 09:08:42 -0700,
> > Gary Shannon <fiziwig@...> wrote:
> >
> >> 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.
>
> I'm not sure what "create" is intended to mean when applied to natlangs here.
>
> It occurs to me that maybe y'all are referring (by the word "create" that
> I was wondering about above) to the *production* of language (of
> utterances), not to the invention of a natlang code (that is, "parole" is
> being created, not "langue"). Then again, maybe not.
I think they mean the process by which a natlang arises - the changes that
turned Vulgar Latin into French would amount to the "creation" of French.

Alternatively, they might be refering to the entire development of natural
language from whatever was its origin.

(Neither interpretation suggests a process that to me seems particularly
comparable to a conlanger crafting a language without knowledge of linguistic
theory, I might add.)

Gary's point, in any case, seems to be that the people who carry out changes to
natural languages (normally) don't know the first thing about linguistic
theory, and hence it is only appropriate that the conlanger, too, is ignorant
of such.

> Personal note: My beef has usually been with conlangers who insist that
> they are operating well inside of natlang evolutionary space,
> notwithstanding any amount of evidence to the contrary (e.g. deep center
> embedding, phonological conditioning of open-class suppletive allomorphy,
> pure ergativity, etc.). I'm becoming more mellow with age, however, and
> now almost always leave everybody alone. :)
What's phonological embedding of open-class suppletive allomorphy?

I usually aim for "naturalness" in the sense of staying inside that evolutionary
space, but all my conlangs, niftily enough, come with ready-made excuses for any
violations.

Quoting "Mark P. Line" <mark@...>:

> Mark P. Line said:
> > Jörg Rhiemeier said:
> >>
> >
> > I have to agree with Andreas on this one.
>
>
> Of course I was using "Andreas" in the more specific sense of "Jörg".
That's a first, I think. Gave me a chuckle, in any case.

                                                 Andreas

Replies