Re: LUNATIC again

>When you say "linguists reject conlangs as objects
>of study", you're totally wrong, as I know linguists that DON'T reject them.
>You should say "some linguists reject..." or "the linguists I know
>reject...", and then your definition cannot stand.
I am glad to hear this, and indeed, in the 11 years since I started fighting
the battle, conlangs have gained in respect from linguists.  But not yet
as objects of study, other than a few who got into linguistics from the
conlang world, and sometimes manage to treat conlangs as academically
respectable (I did mention that there has been a conference on the linguistics
of conlangs).

And yes I recognize that in other countires, where Chomskyans did not come to
dominate, it might be easier for linguists to look at pidgins, conlangs,
and other such things with respect.  But I will note that Matt, while
defining "language" more broadly, did say the same thing - that
linguists are interested (only) in natural languages and creoles, but not
necessarily pidgins.

lojbab