Will Invented Languages include second-party reviews?
James Landau
around its coverage of conlangs by other people. Do people only send
in their own languages, or should this newsletter also allow people to
review a conlang written by another person?
A conlang will meet Wikipedia's notability standards if someone other
than the author of the conlang reviews it in this newsletter. A good
way to get languages like Ceqli, Verdurian and Ke'len back into
Wikipedia.
Rick Harrison
<a392a0aa-094f-4023...@t1g2000pra.googlegroups.com>,
James Landau <savegra...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> One question I had about Invented Languages, the newsletter, revolves
> around its coverage of conlangs by other people. Do people only send
> in their own languages, or should this newsletter also allow people to
> review a conlang written by another person?
Have you seen the first edition? (I have a few promotional copies here
at home, I can send you one if you need it.) Therein I wrote my best
attempt at an objective profile of Lingua Franca Nova, an auxlang
invented by someone other than myself. When it comes to auxlangs I
would _prefer_ to have someone who is not involved with the language
write its profile. That article was meant to be sort of an inspiration
for other writers; only time will tell if it succeeds in that role.
When it comes to artlangs, naturally an article by the creator
explaining the reasons and methods of creation would be very
interesting. But a close linguistic look at the more unusual features
of a particular artlang or engelang, written by someone who is not the
creator, would be interesting too... and if such an article were
written by a Real Linguist<tm>, that would be icing on the cake... do
you agree?
> A conlang will meet Wikipedia's notability standards if someone other
> than the author of the conlang reviews it in this newsletter. A good
> way to get languages like Ceqli, Verdurian and Ke'len back into
> Wikipedia.
I am getting increasingly nauseated by the internet so I _personally_
don't care about impressing the cliques that dominate Wikipedia.
HOWEVER, for those of you who _do_ care, don't assume that it will be
so easy to get your favorites back in. Opponents will say Invented
Languages itself is not notable/reliable, is not an academically peer
reviewed journal, is self published, etc etc etc -- even if these
things are not actually requirements that a source must meet, they will
be mentioned.
Wikipedia is a very complex online game with constantly-shifting rules,
and cliques of dominant editors who have IRC channels and secret
mailing lists that they use to call for support when they need it.
Don't assume that you can win a battle with such people by arguing
rationally or competing in a fair manner.
It might be helpful if the Language Creation Society would publish an
occasional monograph, written by Real Linguists<tm> and peer-reviewed,
each one examining a particular artlang in great detail. (I say
"occasional" because I know trying to maintain a set schedule for this
kind of project is very difficult.) This would be something that _only_
the LCS could accomplish, I believe. Apart from the Wikipedia
notability issue, such a series of publications might raise the
academic respectability of our craft.
Al G. Side
> Apart from the Wikipedia
> notability issue, such a series of publications might raise the
> academic respectability of our craft.
Linguistics is the study of languages, i.e. the communications systems
used by *cultures.* Something made up by one person that only exists in
that person's head is not really a language (but might be very
interesting to neurologists or psychiatrists).
Rick Harrison
Side <pse...@nym.com> wrote:
> Linguistics is the study of languages, i.e. the communications systems
> used by *cultures.* Something made up by one person that only exists in
> that person's head is not really a language (but might be very
> interesting to neurologists or psychiatrists).
Maybe you're right about one-person conlangs not being of interest to
most linguists, but once you get a second person involved it's a
socio-linguistic phenomenon. For example see
langbreeze.blogspot.com/2008/01/intentional-pidgin-produced-by.html
Paul Bartlett
> [trim]
> For example see
> langbreeze.blogspot.com/2008/01/intentional-pidgin-produced-by.html
A suggestion, if I may. When you put a web address in a message,
please include the http:// part. Some mail and/or news agents need it
in order to pick off the address and follow the link. I would have
looked at that link, but my news agent wasn't able to recognize it as a
valid URL (it did not bgin with http:// or www), and it is tedious to
paste it in by hand to a browser. Thanks.
--
Paul Bartlett
Rick Harrison
Bartlett <bart...@panix.com> wrote:
> A suggestion, if I may. When you put a web address in a message,
> please include the http:// part.
I would have done so, but the web address was too long to fit in a
single line as defined by the newsreader I'm using, and the line would
have had a carriage return inserted between ".ht" and "ml", destroying
the functionality of the link. And that also would have produced a
protest, I thought. And using tinyurl.com to make a shorter link
sometimes produces a response of "that tiny URL didn't work for me" (I
don't know why, maybe some ISPs or softwares are blocking tinyURLs.)
So, it was a no-win situation.
Paul Bartlett
> In article <Pine.NEB.4.64.08...@panix2.panix.com>, Paul
> Bartlett <bart...@panix.com> wrote:
>
>> A suggestion, if I may. When you put a web address in a message,
>> please include the http:// part.
>
> I would have done so, but the web address was too long to fit in a
> single line as defined by the newsreader I'm using, and the line would
> have had a carriage return inserted between ".ht" and "ml", destroying
> the functionality of the link. [trim]
> So, it was a no-win situation.
Yes, indeed, because my newsreader-browser interface could not pick off
the URL as provided.
--
Paul Bartlett
James Landau
> Have you seen the first edition? (I have a few promotional copies here
> at home, I can send you one if you need it.) Therein I wrote my best
> attempt at an objective profile of Lingua Franca Nova, an auxlang
> invented by someone other than myself. When it comes to auxlangs I
> would _prefer_ to have someone who is not involved with the language
> write its profile. That article was meant to be sort of an inspiration
> for other writers; only time will tell if it succeeds in that role.
I haven't seen it. But the review of Lingua Franca Nova sounds good.
I've liked the idea of the language after I saw the Lingua Franca Nova
textbook on Wikibooks (well-done).
Checking Wikipedia, I see that all the tags (conflict of interest,
etc.) have been taken off the Lingua Franca Nova article since the
Invented Languages article was written. Good job!
I would like a copy of the newsletter. I'll send you my address.
Dana Nutter deinx nxtxr
I see conlang descriptions as little more than blueprints for
language. They really aren't languages until they have people
actively using the language to communicate. By this standard,
I'd have to say there aren't likely to be many conlangs that
have crossed the line.
-------------------------------------------------
deinx nxtxr
LI SASXSEK LATIS. (http://www.nutter.net/sasxsek)
Padraic Brown
<li_sasxsek...@nutter.net> wrote:
>li [Al G. Side] mi tulis la ...
>
>> On 2008-08-13 01:39:57 -0400, Rick Harrison <_nick...@harrison.net> said:
>>
>> > Apart from the Wikipedia
>> > notability issue, such a series of publications might raise the
>> > academic respectability of our craft.
>>
>> Linguistics is the study of languages, i.e. the communications systems
>> used by *cultures.* Something made up by one person that only exists in
>> that person's head is not really a language (but might be very
>> interesting to neurologists or psychiatrists).
>
>I see conlang descriptions as little more than blueprints for
>language. They really aren't languages until they have people
>actively using the language to communicate.
The same goes for the description of any "real" language. What is
Allen and Greenough if not a "blueprint" for Classical Latin? It tells
you what the bits are and how they can fit together. Doesn't become a
"language" until you put the bits together in a sensible fashion!
>By this standard,
>I'd have to say there aren't likely to be many conlangs that
>have crossed the line.
Not everyone is interested in creating a useable or viable language.
Some people just like to tinker with ideas or create just enough
structure to add some depth to a fictional story.
But there are many conlangs that one *could* actually use -- you just
have to crack open the A&G analogue and put the bits together in a
sensible fashion!
Also, I rather doubt that psychiatrists or neurologists would be any
more interested in conlangs & conlanging than they are in composition
& music.
Padraic
** Posted from http://www.teranews.com **
Dana Nutter deinx nxtxr
> On Sun, 17 Aug 2008 00:52:33 -0400, Dana Nutter \ deinx nxtxr
> <li_sasxsek...@nutter.net> wrote:
>
> >li [Al G. Side] mi tulis la ...
> >
> >> On 2008-08-13 01:39:57 -0400, Rick Harrison <_nick...@harrison.net> said:
> >>
> >> > Apart from the Wikipedia
> >> > notability issue, such a series of publications might raise the
> >> > academic respectability of our craft.
> >>
> >> Linguistics is the study of languages, i.e. the communications systems
> >> used by *cultures.* Something made up by one person that only exists in
> >> that person's head is not really a language (but might be very
> >> interesting to neurologists or psychiatrists).
> >
> >I see conlang descriptions as little more than blueprints for
> >language. They really aren't languages until they have people
> >actively using the language to communicate.
>
> The same goes for the description of any "real" language. What is
> Allen and Greenough if not a "blueprint" for Classical Latin? It tells
> you what the bits are and how they can fit together. Doesn't become a
> "language" until you put the bits together in a sensible fashion!
A blueprint is a plan for something that doesn't yet exist.
Describing Classical Latin or even a modern language comes under
"documenting". Even a blueprint doesn't have to be something
practical or workable.
> >By this standard,
> >I'd have to say there aren't likely to be many conlangs that
> >have crossed the line.
>
> Not everyone is interested in creating a useable or viable language.
> Some people just like to tinker with ideas or create just enough
> structure to add some depth to a fictional story.
That's true. I personally do not expect any of my conlangs to
come to life. I make them mainly for the mental exercise as a
way to play with ideas. I even have one language in the works
with a ridiculously huge phonology so it wouldn't be usable by
humans. It's just an idea I have for taking advantage as many
aspects of speech as I could.
> But there are many conlangs that one *could* actually use -- you just
> have to crack open the A&G analogue and put the bits together in a
> sensible fashion!
I have a lot of ideas in the works. Many are auxlangs so they
are intended to be usable by humans. Many of the others are
experimental ideas I play with, sometimes to see if I want to
use those ideas in one or more of the auxlangs.
Padraic Brown
<li_sasxsek...@nutter.net> wrote:
>li [Padraic Brown] mi tulis la ...
>
>> On Sun, 17 Aug 2008 00:52:33 -0400, Dana Nutter \ deinx nxtxr
>> <li_sasxsek...@nutter.net> wrote:
>>
>> >li [Al G. Side] mi tulis la ...
>> >
>> >> On 2008-08-13 01:39:57 -0400, Rick Harrison <_nick...@harrison.net> said:
>> >>
>> >> > Apart from the Wikipedia
>> >> > notability issue, such a series of publications might raise the
>> >> > academic respectability of our craft.
>> >>
>> >> Linguistics is the study of languages, i.e. the communications systems
>> >> used by *cultures.* Something made up by one person that only exists in
>> >> that person's head is not really a language (but might be very
>> >> interesting to neurologists or psychiatrists).
>> >
>> >I see conlang descriptions as little more than blueprints for
>> >language. They really aren't languages until they have people
>> >actively using the language to communicate.
>>
>> The same goes for the description of any "real" language. What is
>> Allen and Greenough if not a "blueprint" for Classical Latin? It tells
>> you what the bits are and how they can fit together. Doesn't become a
>> "language" until you put the bits together in a sensible fashion!
>
>A blueprint is a plan for something that doesn't yet exist.
So the blueprint for the newly built highschool is no longer a
blueprint? A blueprint is simply a plan for something -- the thing's
existence doesn't change the blueprint any.
>Describing Classical Latin or even a modern language comes under
>"documenting".
Exactly what a conlanger does. He documents a language -- the language
happens to have no prior existence in the primary world, but it is
still being documented. And once the blueprint exists, it is
fundamentally the same as the documentation for any other "real"
language.
>Even a blueprint doesn't have to be something
>practical or workable.
>
>
>> >By this standard,
>> >I'd have to say there aren't likely to be many conlangs that
>> >have crossed the line.
>>
>> Not everyone is interested in creating a useable or viable language.
>> Some people just like to tinker with ideas or create just enough
>> structure to add some depth to a fictional story.
>
>That's true. I personally do not expect any of my conlangs to
>come to life. I make them mainly for the mental exercise as a
>way to play with ideas. I even have one language in the works
>with a ridiculously huge phonology so it wouldn't be usable by
>humans. It's just an idea I have for taking advantage as many
>aspects of speech as I could.
All of these are fair examples of conlanging.
>> But there are many conlangs that one *could* actually use -- you just
>> have to crack open the A&G analogue and put the bits together in a
>> sensible fashion!
>
>I have a lot of ideas in the works. Many are auxlangs so they
>are intended to be usable by humans.
I wasn't even thinking of auxlangs, but indeed many of them can and
have been put to use. Esperanto, Interlingua, etc.
>Many of the others are
>experimental ideas I play with, sometimes to see if I want to
>use those ideas in one or more of the auxlangs.
I am thinking of artlangs that did not exist before they were
discovered; but now are documented and could be used as any other
documented language could be used.
I don't see any fundamental difference between a natural language and
an invented language -- they come from the same place in our heads and
serve the same function. One is made utilitarian, the other artistic.
Bob LeChevalier
>>> >> Linguistics is the study of languages, i.e. the communications systems
>>> >> used by *cultures.* Something made up by one person that only exists in
>>> >> that person's head is not really a language (but might be very
>>> >> interesting to neurologists or psychiatrists).
>>> >
>>> >I see conlang descriptions as little more than blueprints for
>>> >language. They really aren't languages until they have people
>>> >actively using the language to communicate.
>>>
>>> The same goes for the description of any "real" language. What is
>>> Allen and Greenough if not a "blueprint" for Classical Latin? It tells
>>> you what the bits are and how they can fit together. Doesn't become a
>>> "language" until you put the bits together in a sensible fashion!
>>
>>A blueprint is a plan for something that doesn't yet exist.
>
>So the blueprint for the newly built highschool is no longer a
>blueprint? A blueprint is simply a plan for something -- the thing's
>existence doesn't change the blueprint any.
>
>>Describing Classical Latin or even a modern language comes under
>>"documenting".
>
>Exactly what a conlanger does. He documents a language -- the language
>happens to have no prior existence in the primary world,
and which may be impossible to exist in the primary world.
>but it is
>still being documented. And once the blueprint exists, it is
>fundamentally the same as the documentation for any other "real"
>language.
Except that what it documents is not yet real, and might never be
real.
One can draw any number of "blueprints" for 'perpetual motion
machines', but those blueprints are meaningless, since what they
describe does not in fact exist, and even if one were to build it
according to the blueprint, it would not be functional.
A textbook in classical Latin is USEFUL, because to study it gives one
the use of a language that they wouldn't otherwise be able to use. A
textbook in a conlang that is actually in use similarly aids in the
acquisition of a skill.
A "blueprint" for an artlang or a non-functional conlang that will not
actually be used as a language is ... a piece of art. Most people
like some kinds of art, but they don't compare that art to things that
can be used.
>>Many of the others are
>>experimental ideas I play with, sometimes to see if I want to
>>use those ideas in one or more of the auxlangs.
>
>I am thinking of artlangs that did not exist before they were
>discovered; but now are documented and could be used as any other
>documented language could be used.
Until they ARE used, it is only speculative whether they "could be"
used.
>I don't see any fundamental difference between a natural language and
>an invented language -- they come from the same place in our heads and
>serve the same function.
Actually, that is not in evidence. We don't know how natural
languages originally involved, but they probably weren't by a
conscious planned effort. Rather, communications probably accrued to
sufficient extent that people realized that there was a system to
those communications.
lojbab
Bob LeChevalier - artificial linguist; genealogist
loj...@lojban.org Lojban language www.lojban.org
Padraic Brown
<loj...@lojban.org> wrote:
>Padraic Brown <elem...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>>> >> Linguistics is the study of languages, i.e. the communications systems
>>>> >> used by *cultures.* Something made up by one person that only exists in
>>>> >> that person's head is not really a language (but might be very
>>>> >> interesting to neurologists or psychiatrists).
>>>> >
>>>> >I see conlang descriptions as little more than blueprints for
>>>> >language. They really aren't languages until they have people
>>>> >actively using the language to communicate.
>>>>
>>>> The same goes for the description of any "real" language. What is
>>>> Allen and Greenough if not a "blueprint" for Classical Latin? It tells
>>>> you what the bits are and how they can fit together. Doesn't become a
>>>> "language" until you put the bits together in a sensible fashion!
>>>
>>>A blueprint is a plan for something that doesn't yet exist.
>>
>>So the blueprint for the newly built highschool is no longer a
>>blueprint? A blueprint is simply a plan for something -- the thing's
>>existence doesn't change the blueprint any.
>>
>>>Describing Classical Latin or even a modern language comes under
>>>"documenting".
>>
>>Exactly what a conlanger does. He documents a language -- the language
>>happens to have no prior existence in the primary world,
>
>and which may be impossible to exist in the primary world.
It may. I didn't specify, but I think it reasonable that the exercise
doesn't include all possible languages -- even having a grammar for a
language of three-brained mercury breathing insectoids who inhabit a
different set of dimensions doesn't mean a human could use or even
understand said language. Or perhaps even recognise it *as* a
language.
>>but it is
>>still being documented. And once the blueprint exists, it is
>>fundamentally the same as the documentation for any other "real"
>>language.
>
>Except that what it documents is not yet real, and might never be
>real.
Doesn't really matter. The point being, once a (ordinary human)
conlang (say Wenedyk) is sufficiently documented, it *could* be used
the same way one could use Ancient Greek by reading and applying a
grammar of that language.
>One can draw any number of "blueprints" for 'perpetual motion
>machines', but those blueprints are meaningless, since what they
>describe does not in fact exist, and even if one were to build it
>according to the blueprint, it would not be functional.
Entirely true, but also rather beside the point. Not all possible
languages can be used by humans. For *this particular* exercise, the
only languages of interest are those that we can actually use.
>A textbook in classical Latin is USEFUL, because to study it gives one
>the use of a language that they wouldn't otherwise be able to use. A
>textbook in a conlang that is actually in use similarly aids in the
>acquisition of a skill.
>
>A "blueprint" for an artlang or a non-functional conlang that will not
>actually be used as a language is ... a piece of art. Most people
>like some kinds of art, but they don't compare that art to things that
>can be used.
In this case, the grammar book is a piece of art that can be used.
When I drew up the grammar for Kerno, I made it in book form. I sent
copies to some people. Theoretically, they could (and some did) use
that "blueprint" to actually (and fairly accurately) use the language.
>>>Many of the others are
>>>experimental ideas I play with, sometimes to see if I want to
>>>use those ideas in one or more of the auxlangs.
>>
>>I am thinking of artlangs that did not exist before they were
>>discovered; but now are documented and could be used as any other
>>documented language could be used.
>
>Until they ARE used, it is only speculative whether they "could be"
>used.
Goes without saying. Until someone actually does something, whether
that something is actually doable is speculative. Having *done* this
exercise (with Latin, with Esperanto, with Brithenig), the exercise
moves beyond speculation and into fact. What remains to be seen is
only a matter of magnitude: is the language *sufficiently described*
for use. Certainly a conlang will reach a limit beyond which the user
can't go (cos the conlanger got lazy and didn't make words for
such-n-such a set of concepts).
>>I don't see any fundamental difference between a natural language and
>>an invented language -- they come from the same place in our heads and
>>serve the same function.
>
>Actually, that is not in evidence. We don't know how natural
>languages originally involved, but they probably weren't by a
>conscious planned effort.
Nor are all conlangs devised by such conscious planned efforts.
>Rather, communications probably accrued to
>sufficient extent that people realized that there was a system to
>those communications.
Could be.
Padraic
>
>lojbab
>Bob LeChevalier - artificial linguist; genealogist
>loj...@lojban.org Lojban language www.lojban.org