Re: CHAT: models and miniatures

On Fri, 7 Sep 2001, Irina Rempt wrote:

> But it's not a real ship.
In my own line of work, "model" is never an insult.  For example, a
"model disease system" would mean that one has an organism that can
actually be practically studied for a particular disease.  The quality of
the model is independent of whether or not it is a model.  Likewise, if I
decide to use potato as a "model plant expression system" that doesn't
mean that the potato is not really expressing the protein of interest.
It means that this is the system that is smaller than the set of all
possible plants, one that I have controlled and limited to a manageable
level.

> That's why Valdyan is not a model language. It's *intended* to be a
> real language. In the world where it's at home, it *is* a real
If it is designed and under control of a group of limited size, then it
is still a model.  Likewise, I highly doubt that your conlang has the
real scope and vocabulary of a complete natlang.  There are undoubtedly
thousands of words and quirks that you have not yet invented.

> Hmm. I'd rather not call what I do "art"; art makes something
> artificial (in the true, literal sense of the word) for the sake of
> aesthetic pleasure.
"true, literal sense of the word" very often translates as "yabber yabber
jabber rubbish nonsense uppity uppity uppity pinky-out"  The "true,
literal sense" of any word is how it is used in the here and now by the
general consensus of the population that is using it.  Humpty Dumpty is
absurd.

> Valdyan has about five million speakers in the world where it
> belongs. You might argue that they don't exist, but I doubt whether
Bring five of them in front of me to meet in the flesh, face-to-face.

> Yes. I do admit that it has no real reality in *this* world, the
> world that we happen to live in (that is, I don't live under a
> delusion, which I've been accused of more than once) but I need the
> conceit that it has its own existence in its own world, otherwise
> there would be no point in doing anything with it.
Entertainment is the point!!!  The fictionality of a fiction in no way
detracts from its ability to entertain.  I don't have to believe that a
fiction is real for it to entertain me.  Indeed, that strikes me as a
very strange way to be ultimately quite hostile to the idea of
fiction--an inability to distinguish between fiction and "lies".

Reply