Proposal: new language-type name (fwd)

53 views
Skip to first unread message

Jack Durst

unread,
Nov 18, 1997, 3:00:00 AM11/18/97
to

---------- Forwarded message ----------
Date: Sun, 16 Nov 1997 18:19:47 -0800
From: Gerald Koenig <j...@NETCOM.COM>
Subject: Re: Proposal: new language-type name

Julian said:

>The function of NGL is: to build a language for normal interpersonal
>communication among L1 users in the 21st century. In the process, to throw out
>all the excess cultural baggage accumulated in the earlier 20th century and
>before, the parts that are no longer relevant. As an example: implied sexism in
>word connotations. Also, to add into and/or otherwise remap the semantic space,
>so as to optimize it for usefulness, relevance, and future-proof-ness.
>
>Thus:
>
> * NGL is not an auxlang: it will be designed for L1 learners/users (who may or
> may not live in different countries).
> * NGL is not an artlang: it is intended to be deployed in RL on multi-milion
> user scale. It has a purpose beyond being a neat hobby.
> * NGL is not a logiclang: it will be built around linguistic universals so as
> to be easy for L1 learners, logical parts will be an add-on module at most.
>Julian Morrison

This is a very clear goal statement and I hope it finds its way into the
FAQ. Perhaps what makes NGL different from IALs its willingness to start
from scratch with no agenda other than the creation of a very functional
language, as Julian has just articulated above. That is why in my
opinion we need to do more than just take off-the-shelf language parts
and assemble them quickly. We need to rethink language from the ground
up preserving what works and innovating to replace what does not. BTW I
am writing a vector based tense system and I think I can see the end in
sight although it is still not all on paper. I look forward to
thoughtful criticisms and improvements when I finish it.

Gerald Koenig

_________________________

Help Make NGL a Better Language than has been known.

Jack Durst

unread,
Nov 18, 1997, 3:00:00 AM11/18/97
to

Another interesting statement about the function and status of NGLK


Sincerely,
Jack Durst
Sp...@sierra.net
[this posting written in Net English]


---------- Forwarded message ----------
Date: Sun, 16 Nov 1997 17:08:26 +0000
From: Julian Morrison <julian....@virgin.net>
Subject: Re: Proposal: new language-type name

Raymond A. Brown wrote:

> At 07:09 15/11/97, Bruce R. Gilson wrote:
> >Julian Morrison <julian....@VIRGIN.NET> wrote:
> >>Proposal: "functionlang"
> >
> >>Means: a language invented not as art, but for a function (other than
> >>international communication and logic)
> >
> >Except for the fact that he specifically _excluded_ them, to me, logiclangs
> >really fit under the proposed "functionlang" type, so I'd like to see the
> >definition expanded more positively. I've constructed languages to see if I
> >could apply some grammatical systems consistently. Are they "functionlangs"?
>
> Of course they are.
>
> Indeed Julian by explicitly excluding IALs and loglans is implicitly saying
> that arlangs alone have no function. Is Julian perchance saying art has no
> function? ;-)

Art does have a function: to be artistic. (yes, it's a tautology - since when was
art ever simple?)

> Why does inventing a language as art preclude it from being invented for a
> function? IMHO it most certainly doesn't

The idea was for "functionlang" to be a useful term to describe a certain group
of conlangs that weren't fitting into the pattern. Those being the (relatively
rare) conlangs that were not artlangs, logiclangs, or auxlangs, but instead
designed around some *other* specified purpose(s).

You could probably stretch the concept of "functionlang" to encompass all
conlangs but then it would become an exact synonym for "conlang" and thus
irrelevant. The idea is to have a name for languages which are *only*
functionlangs.

> If Julian feels that the present terms artlang, auxlang & loglan do not
> describe NGL, then, I agree with Bruce, a more positive definition is
> needed. What is the function of NGL?

The function of NGL is: to build a language for normal interpersonal
communication among L1 users in the 21st century. In the process, to throw out
all the excess cultural baggage accumulated in the earlier 20th century and
before, the parts that are no longer relevant. As an example: implied sexism in
word connotations. Also, to add into and/or otherwise remap the semantic space,
so as to optimize it for usefulness, relevance, and future-proof-ness.

Thus:

* NGL is not an auxlang: it will be designed for L1 learners/users (who may or
may not live in different countries).
* NGL is not an artlang: it is intended to be deployed in RL on multi-milion
user scale. It has a purpose beyond being a neat hobby.
* NGL is not a logiclang: it will be built around linguistic universals so as
to be easy for L1 learners, logical parts will be an add-on module at most.

--
Julian Morrison


Reply all
Reply to author
Forward
0 new messages