Re: META: Re: Let's return to conlanging (was: Li Lingue Modern)
|From:||Raymond A. Brown <raybrown@...>|
|Date:||Monday, November 2, 1998, 22:10|
At 2:41 pm -0400 31/10/98, David G. Durand wrote:
>At 3:10 PM -0400 11/1/98, Matt Pearson wrote:
>>The question is: Are these issues intrinsic or extrinsic to the task
>>of Language Design (which is what auxlangers and artlangers share
>>in common)?. In my opinion, both issues are intrinsic: Building
>>a convincing and internally consistent imaginary world is vital to
>>creating a good artlang,
No quarrel whatsoever with this - agree 100%
>>while considering how best to transition from
>>the design stage to real-world use is essential to creating a good
>>As such, both issues should be fair game for discussion on Conlang.
The second point is also clearly true & in theory ought to be fair game.
It has certainly been discussed on Auxlang. But Auxlangers, as Rick
Harrison, once pointed out, do tend to be eristic - a pity.
But my problem was with a guy who seems to be pretty certain that he is
already successfully pushing two conIALs whose design was completed more
than half a century ago. If one is going to use Conlang to do that, surely
one should be prepared to accept some discussion on the way those languages
were CONSTRUCTED without being accused all the time of being negative. If
the languages did not have any defects, then why haven't they become more
widely adopted after all this time.
I accept I was being too narrow in what I considered fair game here. It's
just bad experience on that other list, I guess.
But surely if a conlang of whatever nature is mentioned here, may we not
discuss it? I think both Matt & David (and others) do agree on that point.