The Great Sundering (was Re: basic morphemes of a loglang)
|From:||Jörg Rhiemeier <joerg_rhiemeier@...>|
|Date:||Tuesday, November 25, 2003, 20:03|
On Mon, 24 Nov 2003 22:37:53 -0500,
"Mark J. Reed" <markjreed@...> wrote:
> On Mon, Nov 24, 2003 at 10:18:42PM -0500, Paul Bennett wrote:
> > PS: You might find some resistence to talk of logical languages in these
> > parts, due to The Great Schism, but don't let it put you off from looking
> > for answers.
> ? Did logical languages fall on the auxlang side of the schism, or was
> the schism more than bipartite?
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.
The AUXLANG mailing list was set up specifically to create a forum
for such topics, in order to keep them out of CONLANG.
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. 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.
This is still CONLANG and not just "ARTLANG", even though most
of the conlangs discussed here are indeed artlangs.