Re: CHAT: models and miniatures

J Matthew Pearson wrote:

> Somehow I fail to find the term "model" at all pejorative.  A
> model ship is not a toy, or a counterfeit, or a fraud.  It's a
> depiction (or "imitation", in the Aristotelean sense) of a real
> ship--just as a painting of a house is a depiction of a house.
> Similarly with model languages.  Far from being belittling, I
> find that this point of view ennobles conlanging, placing it
> firmly within the sphere of Art.
Indeed, I think your reference to Aristotle is quite apt:  he saw
imitation (mimesis) as an instinctual ability that sets humans
apart from animals. If that is so (and it is probably disputable
to some extent), conlanging, far from being artificial, as a subset
of the world of art would be one of the most human and natural
features of our existence.

> I think part of the reason why some people object to calling a
> conlang a "model" is their sense that this somehow negates the
> reality of that conlang.  That's not the way I feel.
I agree.  Many realms of science also use 'models' to describe
their respective phenomena.  Does a physicist's theory on the
nature of subatomic reality make that reality any less real? I
would certainly hope not!

===================================
Thomas Wier | AIM: trwier

"Aspidi men Saiôn tis agalletai, hên para thamnôi
  entos amômêton kallipon ouk ethelôn;
autos d' exephugon thanatou telos: aspis ekeinê
  erretô; exautês ktêsomai ou kakiô" - Arkhilokhos