Re: OT: Artlanging is now mainstream

----- Original Message ----
> From: Sai Emrys <saizai@...>
> I don't see this as anything bad or dangerous to acknowledge, so long
> as we keep on with the underlying agreement that we all have here (I
> think?) that such differences are matters of taste
...
> Speaking as an engelanger myself: I find the difference between "what
> do languages currently do" and "what could languages do" to be
> fascinating.
>
> I see no good argument for why the happenstance of cultural and
> linguistic evolution at all demonstrates the boundaries of what
> language is capable of, only the minimums.
Sure. Going back to your categorization comments, I think categories and labels and
what have you are useful when they aid someone in more quickly assessing
goals and thought processes so everyone involved can go in the direction they
want to go more efficiently. For instance, if someone interested in conlangs as
a "what COULD languages be capable of?" exercises is discussing conlangs with
someone interested in an alternate-history Medieval Romance language where
Marius was unsuccessful and Rome collapsed earlier than it did, those two
people are obviously going to be approaching the conlangs from different
perspectives. It helps to call the first conlang an englang and the second an
artlang*. As long as category-making doesn't go in the direction of sneering at
"THOSE conlangers," I find it tends to do more good than harm. It's One True
Wayism that's the biggest problem (as exemplified by emogothboy), not the
categorization in itself.

I fully support respectful conlang ecumenicalism. :) (I was, in my earlier
years, a One True Wayist about a variety of subjects, so I hold out hope that
our absent emogothboy may leave his arrogance behind with his youth... or at
least let it mature into something more subtle and palatable. ;) )

-- Paul

* Not to be confused with an artielang, which is a specialized constructed
language used only by Shock Jock DJs.