Re: Necessity of Conculture?

On Sat, 29 May 1999 13:13:59 PDT, Chris Peters <alpha_leonis@...>
wrote:

>        But is it possible to go the other way?  To create a language for its own
>sake?  What do the rest of y'all think?  How important is that conculture,
>as a part of the art of the conlang?
>
Perhaps the difference between a conlang without and with a conculture
is a bit like the difference between chess and roleplaying. Both infinitely
fascinating games (at least to me). But even with chess I tend to be more
interested in 'things around the game', like the history of the pieces,
the characters of the players and so, instead of in the interplay
of moves.

I prefer roleplaying games for the human interest involved, likewise I want
a conculture to be able to write all the side-chat on the origin of words and
about when which language is used and why, and the example sentences in
my grammar also need a conculture to come from. Come to think of that, the natlang
grammars I like most (Rutgers' Grammar of Yamphu, van Driem's Grammar of Dumi)
include large and fascinating sections on culture.

Boudewijn Rempt  | http://www.xs4all.nl/~bsarempt