Re: Aesthetics

Jörg Rhiemeier wrote:
> Hallo!
>
> On Thu, 18 Oct 2007 20:54:46 +0100, R A Brown wrote:
[snip]
>
>>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 ...
Quite so, as well as the ear of the beholder. IME people _tend_ to find
what is similar to their own L1 is pleasing and what is very different
is unpleasing. I stress I have found this as a tendency, not by any
means an absolute.

That may in part explain why auxlangs so often reflect to a lesser or
greater extend the phonology of an author's L1. But I'll not go too far
that road as anything said about auxlangs IME, alas, is liable to
provoke flames. I've had more than enough of that.

>>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*.
Oh - I think you're doing yourself an injustice. All unblocked
syllables, the only consonants being /p t k s l m n/, no consonant
clusters. That is not what I call ugly. I know some people like he /a/
sound, and that is lacking. I also know some people don't like the
languages with just CV syllables like the Polynesian languages; but I
find them attractive. But, as this thread has made quite clear, such
things are very much subjective.

But FWIW I don't find X-1's phonology 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.
That is true. But I will be very interested to see what you come up
with. As you know, I've had several attempts at devising a phonology &
orthography to which a stream of 'nibbles' may map.

> Engelangs are guided by objectively testable criteria - and aesthetics
> is of course not objectively testable!
Indeed not. I suppose and author could state those features s/he thinks
contributes to a language being aesthetically pleasing and one could
measure how well those features are implemented. An interesting concept.

>>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.
I must at least get EAK & Piashi out of the way. EAK should not be too
much of a problem as it is based on a natlang & the vocabulary is, so to
speak, 'ready made'. I'm hoping that by solving some of the problems
involved with a _flexionless_ language, it may help with Piashi which,
after some 50 years maturing, really needs to be finished!

--
Ray
==================================
http://www.carolandray.plus.com
==================================
Entia non sunt multiplicanda
praeter necessitudinem.