Theiling Online    Sitemap    Conlang Mailing List HQ   

Re: ceqli

From:And Rosta <a.rosta@...>
Date:Friday, July 16, 2004, 15:11
John Cowan:
> And Rosta scripsit: > > > As for Garth's explanation, Ceqli itself is a > > published work, so its use in a published work of fiction should > > not be criterial, and Ceqli does have a small community of > > supporters; the spokenness of a language is not a necessary > > condition for its being of interest. > > No, indeed. But: > > 1) Wikipedia is meant to represent a secondary source, not to contain > original content (and the line between secondary and primary is hard > to draw when the same person writes both), and > > 2) It's conventional not to write Wikipedia articles about one's own > creations (as opposed to the topics of one's research, which *is* > encouraged). > > I would have no problem with an article on Ceqli written by someone else.
Okay. Fair point. (I find myself wondering, though, where the boundary between research and creation lies. For example, Arc Pair Grammar was a grammatical theory created by Paul Postal, not really understood by anybody else, but definitely deserving an encyclopaedia entry. Would Postal be allowed to write the entry for Arc Pair Grammar? What then about (say) Livagian (assuming hypothetically that it had been published), which could be viewed as a practical expression of a theory of how optimally to realize a usable logically explicit and unambiguous language?) --And.

Reply

John Cowan <jcowan@...>