Re: How to evaluate a conlang

João Ricardo de Mendonça wrote:

> How do you evaluate a conlang? How do you define a "good" or a "bad"
> conlang? I understand this is a personal criteria, so I'm not looking
> for a definitive answer. I just wanted to know other people's opinions
> on this.
I don't think there's any objective way to evaluate a conlang, that
would be like trying to use a ruler to measure poetry. So, it's only my
very subjective opinion.

First, to be "good", a conlang must be original. I find re-working
somebody else's conlang very insulting for the original author.

Second, I look at the sounds. I always give bad grades to conlang which
mimic english soundings and orthography. There are so many of them that
it's getting boring. Apart from that, I don't care much about the
phonology. There's always something you would change. I however always
give a good grade for the unexpected, like one or two letters with
unexpected sounds assigned to them. If the orthography is too complex, I
totally disregard it to go the next step.

Third, the grammar. I dislike Euro-clones, natlang clones and elfic
clones. I prefer more exotic features. I give my better grades to
conlangs totally devoided of one common class of words --any kind-- or,
at least, which have strange ways around one class. Of course, some
coherency makes a "good" conlang so I prefer regular conlangs i.e.
without too many grammatical exceptions.

Fourth, the grammar again. I qualify as "good" a conlang that is hard to
translate without loosing half of its subtleties. That's what happens
with natlangs. A translator doesn't translate, he/she re-writes with
words from L2 what he/she reads in L1... if you see what I mean.

Well, I think that your question will teach you more about the
psychology of the conlangers of the list than about what is a "good" or
a "bad" conlang.  ;-)

Hope it helps but don't think so,

--
==================
Remi Villatel
maxilys_@_tele2.fr
==================

Reply