áòðééï: Re: Are conlangs fictional?
|From:||Dan Sulani <dnsulani@...>|
|Date:||Sunday, March 24, 2002, 18:58|
On 23 March, Padraic Brown wrote:
> I would say they are not. Consider them as transdimensionally
> imported cultural artifacts. I could make a Star Trek uniform
> or an Anian gong just as easily: these objects would not be
> fictional, because they have real existence; though they would
> still derive from a fictional place.
I have a problem with the "reality" of uniforms (and flags
and money and other "official" items) based upon a fictional
authority. A uniform, (flag, etc.) is more than just an artifact.
It signals "belonging" --- and how does one belong to a
For that matter, I could make myself a uniform from a
"real" army in today's "real world" --- but that would not
make me a soldier in that army. Is the the uniform "real"?
On one hand, as you said above, the clothing exists.
(And a soldier of that army would have no problem wearing
the uniform I made.) But for _me_ to wear that uniform does
not confer upon me any of the uniform's symbolic value.
Or take money. I could print money based on a fictional
currency. I could even print money based on a real
country's currency. In neither case would my money have
"official" value. In fact, in the latter case, I could very well
go to prison for copying a country's currency!
IMHO, conlangs are like complex numbers:
there can be both real and imaginary parts! :-)
(depending upon where the conlang is used.)
likehsna rtem zuv tikuhnuh auag inuvuz vaka'a.
A word is an awesome thing.