Theiling Online    Sitemap    Conlang Mailing List HQ   

Re: LUNATIC again

From:Logical Language Group <lojbab@...>
Date:Tuesday, November 10, 1998, 4:16
>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