Re: LeGuin (was: a 12th century conlang)

JOEL MATTHEW PEARSON wrote:

> On Wed, 24 Mar 1999, John Cowan wrote:
>
> > I don't think there's a shred of evidence that UKL disdains the
> > conlang passion, and some evidence that she actually possesses it.
>
> Agreed.  In her introduction to the Kesh lexicon (one of the many
> appendicies in the novel "Always Coming Home"), she suggests that
> the details of Kesh vocabulary might be interesting to "fellow
> practitioners of what an illustrious predecessor called the Secret
> Vice".  This implies that she considers herself a practitioner of
> the Secret Vice - hence a conlanger.  Her conlanging efforts may
> not be as thorough or 'deep' as those of others, but she's definitely
> more linguistically inclined than your average science fiction writer.
>
> Matt.
Well I guess I'd better break down and read this book, especially asI'm
launching a study of literary and other conlanging.  The only really
"developed" description of a conlang from a novel (other than Tolkien)
that I've found has been Elgin's LAadan, which I purchased last week.
And I guess the reason it could be published is that it has a political
bent to
it, and therefore some kind of market.  If I ever EVER get done with
_Debby's Making_, the first piece of fiction I've started that deals with
Teonaht, I intend to put some kind of linguistic appendix in it at the
end,
but you know... editors might scrap it.  It's such a difficult market.

Sally.  Sorry for my grumps.  Head still hurts.