Theiling Online    Sitemap    Conlang Mailing List HQ   

Re: OT: What makes a good conlang? (was Re: Super OT: Re: CHAT: JRRT)

From:Jörg Rhiemeier <joerg_rhiemeier@...>
Date:Wednesday, March 10, 2004, 19:59
Hallo!

On Wed, 10 Mar 2004 00:37:52 -0000,
And Rosta <a.rosta@...> wrote:

> David P: > > Joerg wrote: > > <<People who follow their intuition often create better and more > > realistic art than people who try to be exact.>> > > > > The only caveat I'd add to this is that, with visual art, for example, > > there's little chance of someone being influenced by anything other > > than their own intuitions if they choose to follow simply their own > > intuitions. In conlanging you run the risk of emulating your L1, or > > any other language you know.
True. My earliest conlangs were pretty much modelled after the Latin I had learned in school, though the morphology was more regular than that of Latin.
> > So I'd say it's important to draw a > > distinction between the instinct of what sounds right/makes sense, > > and what sounds right/makes sense *within* the framework of the > > language one's inventing. After all, I think we've all probably > > seen examples (and, indeed, I've *been* an example) of someone doing > > something because they think it sounds/feels right, and what they do > > ends up emulating English, or some other known languages, almost exactly. > > As words of advice to a novice conlanger that all makes sense, as > does Teoh's rejoinder that anti-L1ism can result in gratuitious > and grotesque ("frankenlang") exoticism (-- I remember the time when > 98% of the artlangs on this list were ergative...).
Yes. The wave of ergative artlangs in the 1990s is reminiscent of the frequent appearance of dirigibles in alternative-history stories. People tried to be different from what they were used to, and ergativity was an obvious option. A few conlangers pioneered it, and then everybody jumped onto the train, before people got bored with ergative languages, and started making active and trigger languages.
> But advice to novice conlangers apart, I think that similarity to > one's L1 (or other well-known language) is an irrelevance (to > What Makes a Compelling Conlang). The important thing is to think > out, and feel out, one's conlang thoroughly.
Yes. There are conlangs which result from deep meditations on the structure of the creator's L1, or some other well-known language.
> Similarity to L1 > is a risk not because similarity to L1 is a bad thing, but > because it can let you lapse into not thinking and feeling > out your conlang thoroughly. But there are also many other ways > in which you can lapse into not thinking and feeling out your > conlang thoroughly.
Very true. Greetings, Jörg.

Reply

Joe <joe@...>