Re: OT: auxlangers vs. artlangers (was OT: lingua fracas)

Thank you for your comments on my "auxlangers vs. artlangers" post.

Chris Bates <christopher.bates@...> writes:

> Does not knowing linguistics well  make someone a dork?
No, of course not.  Someone who refuese to learn about linguistics
because he wrongly claims he understands language, is.

>       I wouldn't say
> so... I would say that if they are inventing languages the natural way
> to go is to learn, and that the dorks are the people who are unwilling
> to learn, but a lack of knowledge does not necessarily reflect an
> unwillingness to learn, it might simply be that they have just started
> and haven't had time yet to learn.
Exactly.

>       I think everyone here made some very
> bad or at least unimaginative choices for their first conlang or two,
> and I know in my first ones I used letters to define the sounds of my
> languages and assumed that everyone would give the letters their english
> values.
When I talked about "dorks", I wasn't talking about people who make
beginners' mistakes such as taking English letter values for granted
just because they have just started thinking about and making up languages;
I referred to people who refuse to learn.

> Now I tend to use tables ... place of articulation along the top, type
> of sound down the side... my tables show what sound I'm assigning to
> each letter, and then I use the letters to represent the values I've
> assigned to them...
I do the same.

>       writing IPA or any of its ASCII versions is too much
> of a nuisance to be quite honest, and looks down right ugly, and if my
> table at the start accurately specifies what sound each letter I'm using
> represents what's the point?
What I meant when I wrote about auxlangers describing languages
in terms of letters rather than phonemes is something else,
namely the assumption that the letters are the basic building blocks
of the language, while in fact they are mere symbols representing
the actual basic building blocks, namely, phonemes.

Roberto Suarez Soto <ask4it@...> writes:

> On Jun/19/2003, Jörg Rhiemeier wrote:
>
> > This of course raises the question, why is auxlanger linguistics so doggy?
>
>         I think that it is because auxlangers try to fix natural
> languages, while artlangers only try to imitate them (usually, at
> least). I think it's only a question of too much ego, thinking that they
> know better than Mother Nature ;-)
Yes, at least some auxlang proposals reflect that.  Those who want
to leave a permanent mark on the world are more likely to produce
auxlangs rather than artlangs.  These people want to better the world
as a whole, rather than making a humble contribution to some
obsure art most living people don't care about.

Tristan McLeay <kesuari@...> answers on the same question of mine:

> My guess is it's different intentions. Artlangers, generally, are after
> imitation or exploration. Auxlangers are after a language that everyone
> will use and will put them into history books.
Yes.  Artlangers seek to imitate or explore, and thus try to gain a deep
understanding of languages.  Auxlangers try to inscribe themselves
into history by changing what they often don't understand.
If they understood language better, they knew that their mission
was futile.

>      You see it so often:
> things designed to make its creator famous are often of a lower quality
> than things made for the fun of it (though of course not always). How
> many times have you heard it: people complaining about having so-and-so
> as leader of such-and-such because they only want to *be* the leader.
Very true.

> Instead, you should put someone who *doesn't* want to have that position
> in charge. (And again, as all broad generalisations, that has its share
> of exceptions, but it's the idea that counts.) Well, that's my theory.
Yes.

Lars Henrik Mathiesen <thorinn@...> comments:

> Or perhaps it is that people with a good feeling for language, skilled
> linguists or not, will realize that the little details don't really
> matter that much for learnability or usability. If they should want to
> further the cause of one common IAL, they will sit back and wait for
> the fanatics to agree on which one.
>
> Or they speak Esperanto and are done with the discussion already.
This is also a valid point.  The vast majority of those subscribing to the
general idea of an artificial IAL probably feel that one of the proposals
(and for the largest fraction, this proposal is Esperanto)
is good enough to fulfil its purpose even if it isn't perfect, and have no
eggs to fry in the pan of those who battle each other on their proposals.

Jörg.








______________________________________________________________________________
UNICEF bittet um Spenden fur die Kinder im Irak! Hier online an
UNICEF spenden: https://spenden.web.de/unicef/special/?mc=021101

Reply