Re: The Great Sundering (was Re: basic morphemes of a loglang)

On Tuesday, November 25, 2003, at 08:17 PM, Jörg Rhiemeier wrote:
[snip]

> As far as I understand it, there is nothing wrong with discussing
> design issues of a loglang, even of an outright auxlang, here.
> What we don't want here, and that's what the Great Sundering was about,
> are adverts of this or that auxlang as the ultimate solution of the
> problem of international communication, and the constant bickering
> between supporters of different auxlang proposals (e.g., Esperanto vs.
> Ido).
> The AUXLANG mailing list was set up specifically to create a forum
> for such topics, in order to keep them out of CONLANG.
Spot on!

> However, many people here on CONLANG tend to avoid talking about
> anything that could be taken for an auxlang, for fear that the sort
> of dross AUXLANG is made for erupts on CONLANG.
Yep - tho any most languages could, if so wished, be ued as an auxlang
(to a limited extent, Klingon actually is AFAIK).  I remember a few years
back some guy asked this list to give their preferences of their top 10
languages that could be used as auxlangs.  I was a bit peeved that he was
asking on this list - so I made sure my reply contained basically artlangs
:)
IIRC my top three were Quenya, Kinya & Tepa in that order (actually, I
would prefer any of those three to the langs bandied on that other list).

But discussions of my BS (aka BrSc aka 'briefscript') have not as far as I
remember provoked flames even tho one of its (theoretic) aims is to be an
IAL (just as it was one of the aims of Speedwords which is what started the
whole BS project off decades ago).  But I suspect some think a few of my
recent ideas have placed BS firmly in the artlang camp  :-)

>  But to my experience,
> the delineation drawn at the Great Sundering works rather well,
> and I see little problems with discussing loglang design issues here.
Nor I.

> This is still CONLANG and not just "ARTLANG", even though most
> of the conlangs discussed here are indeed artlangs.
Amen!
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
On Wednesday, November 26, 2003, at 01:25 AM, Costentin Cornomorus wrote:

[snip]
> While loglangs and auxlangs may be discussed
> here, it should be noted that authors of same who
> spew their politics here are subject to righteous
> flaming.
I don't recall any of loglangers on this list spewing
out politics.

> It's a matter of prefering to keep this area
> happy and friendly;
...and constructive.

> the price may be to
> vuluntarily exclude some topics. Auxlangs being
> one such.
Only auxlang politics, I hope - you're not going to ban
BS, are you?   :)
------------------------------------------------------------

On Wednesday, November 26, 2003, at 02:13 AM, And Rosta wrote:
>
> From: Mark J. Reed <markjreed@...>
[snip]
>> Did logical languages fall on the auxlang side of the schism, or was
>> the schism more than bipartite?
>>
>> -Mark
>
> Logical languages fell on the conlang side of the schism.
Yep - they certainly did, and the schism was only bipartite.

> But the
> schism allowed artlangs to bloom on conlang,
Blooming artlangers!!    :)

> so much that the
> dribs and drabs of loglanging were thoroughly drowned out.
Isn't it up to loglangers on the list to post to the list?
I mean, we have so much OT stuff (and yet again another boring
'English usage/grammar' thread  :(

I for one welcome any posts actually about language construction
- particularly those about languages still being constructed, like
Livagian (and BS :)

Vivant Liva, Livagianum, -gua!spi, lojban, Loglan et aliae linguae
logicales!

Ray
===============================================
http://home.freeuk.com/ray.brown
ray.brown@freeuk.com    (home)
raymond.brown@kingston-college.ac.uk   (work)
===============================================

Reply