Re: Aesthetics

Hallo!

On Thu, 18 Oct 2007 20:54:46 +0100, R A Brown wrote:

> Edgard Bikelis wrote:
> [...]
> > Maybe aesthetics are just for vain tongues : ).
>
> Some would hold that all conlanging is vain.
Some hold that all conlanging except auxlanging is vain.  However,
I'd say that auxlanging is the vainest kind of conlanging - it is
certainly more vain to aspire to create something that the whole
world will use on a daily base, than to create something just for
the fun of it!  Add to this that the race is practically already
run, and English is the winner.

> I know well that there are some conlangs in which aesthetics do play a
> part. They are, I guess, mainly artlangs. Indeed, there is IMO no reason
> why aesthetics shouldn't play a part. I'm sure they played a large part
> in Tolkien's Quenya.
Sure.  Quenya was made entirely to fit the personal taste of its
creator.  Many, if not most artlangs are that way.  However,
aesthetics sometimes play a role in other kinds of conlangs as well.
Many auxlangers try to make their languages beautiful because they
feel that a beautiful language will find it easier to be adopted
by millions of people than an ugly one.  Of course, beauty lies in
the eye of the beholder ...

> But what I was saying was that one should not assume that all conlangs
> are guided by aesthetic principles.
Yes.  For example, I find my own X-1 outright *ugly*.  Perhaps I will
ditch the present orthography and pronunciation scheme entirely one day
- it is entirely secondary to the structure of the language anyway.
Engelangs are guided by objectively testable criteria - and aesthetics
is of course not objectively testable!

> Maybe, when I've got EAK & Piashi out of the way (not sure about the
> "reformed Plan B" one), I will treat myself and design an artlang purely
> for my own pleasure    ;)
Do so when you find the leisure to do it.

... brought to you by the Weeping Elf

Replies