Re: Language superiority, improvement, etc.

On Wed, 14 Oct 1998 20:47:30 -0400, Nik Taylor <fortytwo@...> wrote:

>Raymond A. Brown wrote:
>
>> In my teens, as I've said, I churned out one IAL after another.
>> I didn't discover them - I invented them.  Quite the wrong approach =
IMO to
>> true conlanging.
>
>Amen.  Tarni'f was entirely "invented".  It was heavily influenced by
>English, but it wasn't an English relex.  I'd taken Latin earlier, and I
>was taking Spanish at the time, so some of it was influenced by Spanish
>and Latin.  For example, I had two prepositions for "for", modelled on
>_por_ and _para_, but I later made them a little different, but I
>*invented* the rules for their use, so that I merely had to look at what
>I'd written to know which one to use.  But, over my past few conlangs,
>I've discovered that each one developed more slowly.  Why?  I think it's
>because I am "discovering" it.  For W., I did'nt set out saying
>"circumlocative is used for such-and-such situation", I've *discovered*
>when it's used.  My earlier discussion of la'u/kapati' is the same way.
>Originally, I intended it to simply cover eating and drinking, but I 've
>since discovered that it's really more like "introducing a substance
>thru the mouth".
Well, I think I'd agree that the "best" conlangs end up being =
"discovered"
rather than "invented", at least in the category of artlangs. But there's
also value in "inventing" languages, if only for practice or a source of
ideas. It's analogous to playing musical scales to improve your skill =
with
actual music, or drawing boxes and cylinders to practice perspective.

It's interesting to go through some of my old attempts; even if they =
aren't
all worth reviving, and more of them were "invented" rather than
"discovered", some of them have interesting ideas that might fit better =
in
one of my newer languages.