Re: OT: Super OT: Re: CHAT: JRRT

Quoting David Peterson <ThatBlueCat@...>:

> Still Joerg:
> <<...it is an engelang...>>
>
> Come November, I'll be a four-year list member, but I seem to have missed out
> on this term.   What's an Engelang?
From the Conlang Dictionary:

engelang /endZl&N/ n. [? from _eng(ineered)_ + _lang(uage)_]
1. A conlang that is designed to certain criteria, such that it is objectively
testable whether the criteria are met or not. This is different from claiming
that the criteria themselves are 'objective'. For example, the Lojban/Loglan
roots are dsigned to be maximally recognisable to the speakers of the
(numerically) largest languages in the world in proportion to the number of
speakers. It is not a matter of taste whether this criterion is met; it is
something that can be tested. (John Cowan)

> Andreas wrote:
> <<> Slavish conformity is the enemy of creativity, but mindless
> > heterodoxy is not a virtue in itself. For example, the glorious
> > pluralism of American culture is scarcely enhanced (except as
> > black comedy) by, say, white supremacists or New Age astrologers.

While I basically agree, I did as a matter of fact not say that. And did.

> Andreas wrote:
> <<I guess our disagreement begins about here. I remain unconvinced that there
> is
> something like objectively good or bad prose, unless the definition is
> purely
> utilitarian, which I strongly suspect isn't what this McWhorter is
> complaining about.>>
>
> The statement that this is a reply to is a very dualistic one, which I won't
> get into.
[snip stuff about McWhorter]
> I still contend that the sentence I wrote was of poor quality, and
> I'll get to my position later, when it becomes more relevant.
I don't think you actually got around to explaining why you consider the
sentence to be of (objectively) poor quality.

> Still Andreas:
> <<I must confess my identification with the conlanging community is very
> weak.>>
>
> Man, you *are* the conlang community.   We *all* are, whether we like it or
> not.   We can't identify with the community more or less, since we define it.
Sure I can. What I identify with and to what degree is something that is
decided entirely inside my head, without necessarily paying any heed to mere
facts like membership of reasonably defined classes.

> The best way to think of it is that there is a prototypical conlanger (gay,
> bearded, male, left-handed, Lithuanian linguist?), and, regardless of how
> one
> feels one fits in, one's status (well, kind of) depends on how we match up
> with the prototype.
I'm not sure which status you're refering to here? Status within the
community, or as a member of the community within the wider society?

> Now, the prototype is probably what the outside world
> responds to.   Therefore, the more general the prototype becomes, the less
> one can stereotype.
Gotta disagree here. People routinely demonstrate a very well developed
ability to stick to stereotypes in the face of ample evidence that the
stereotype oversimplifies, distorts or even entirely misrepresents.

> For example, what's a prototypical human?   A prototypical
> living
> entity on earth?   The description is so vague that it's not useful at all,
> and so you have to dig deeper.
>
> Andreas:
> <<but the sort of
> person who'd dismiss conlanging because all conlangers he/she knew liked
> Tolkien is not the kind of person I want aboard, nor the one whose opinion
> of the hobby I'm interested in.>>
>
> Excuse the glibness of this, but this sounds like the mother telling her
> child with respect to the bully, "Anyone who calls you names is not your
> friend."
>  The response is, "Well, duh, Mom."   You still have to deal with them,
> though, unless you move for total isolationism.
I don't think that's a good analogy. If you can't deal effectively with the
bullies (and you normally can't), you're in for mental and physical pain,
possibility even permanent damage (being bullied certainly changed my
personality, and not in ways I'm particularly happy with). In the case of your
hypothetical Tolkien-hater, all I stand to lose is his potential contributions
to conlanging.

[snip]
>
> The sense of "genre" you were taught in literature class is still taught in
> literature class.   I'd argue that "genre" can no longer be defined that
> way,
> though.
[snip]

Minor point: That a definition is no longer commonly used in no way makes it
untenable. Might make it impractical for communication, tho.

> This [writing intended to fit in a specific content-based genre] is what I
> object to.   Why?   Because what I enjoy, what entertains *me*
> when I read, is excellent writing.
Clearly we've got different tastes. I tend to care more for interesting plot,
complex characters, clever references to other works than for the language
this is expressed in.

Tangential tought: I wonder if this is related to fact that I'm not always
aware which language I'm hearing or speaking. I do have this impression that
my language processing (in non-amateur-linguist mode) is more subconscious
than that of most people I know.

[snip]
> In other words, they were saying that short stories where there isn't a lot
> of
> overt, in-your-face plot, are of lesser quality than those that focus on,
> say, the writing, or the characterization.   It can hardly get more blatant
> than that.
I would, of course, object to their claim on much the same grounds I
originally objected to your statement that Tolkien wasn't worth reading.

> The rest of the story is [Tolkien's] actual writing.   His writing does not
> do anything for me at all.
You're not required to justify your dislike for Tolkien's writing - my point
is precisely that whether someone finds anyone's writings good or not is
subjective, and not to be elevated to a claim that that someone's writing is
objectively good or bad.

> Plus,
> since I can get all the content in a visual format now, with the movies
> (which
> many have said were as accurate as they could be [and I heard that the many
> scenes that didn't appear were actually filmed and reserved for the
> DVD's...?]),
> why would I bother reading the books?
Actually, it's not hard (if you've read the books as many times with as much
interest as me) to think of simple ways of making the movies more faithful to
the books. If that would have pleased the typical viewer and increased revenue
is open to doubt, of course. I do heartily agree with Mark that I'd much
rather lose the movies than the books, but then I've always prefered the
written medium to movies.

> All right, I'm done.   All the previous has been a defense or explanation of
> my *opinion*, not an attack, or an assertion of truth.   After all, all I can
> assert is my opinion.
If your initial claim about Tolkien not being worth reading had been supplied
with a similar disclaimer, we'd never had this discussion. Now, I think it's
an interesting discussion, so I'm unable to mobilize any considerable
hostility to that lack.

                                                           Andreas

Reply