On 20/05/2011 20:09, Jim Henry wrote:
> On Fri, May 20, 2011 at 2:49 PM, MorphemeAddict<[log in to unmask]>  wrote:
>> Where can I find the presentation of the van Steenbergen Hexagon?
>
> http://conference.conlang.org/lcc4/speakers/jvslcc4.ppt
> or
> http://conference.conlang.org/lcc4/speakers/jvslcc4.pdf
> (linked from http://conference.conlang.org/lcc4/speakers.php )
>
> On Fri, May 20, 2011 at 2:02 PM, Jan Strasser<[log in to unmask]>  wrote:
>> Maybe the van Steenbergen Hexagon is best conceptualized as a radar chart,
>> where a given conlang can be profiled along six independent typological
>> axes?
>
> A radar chart is a useful technique for displaying 3+ dimensional data
> in two dimensions, but it might be more useful, in classifying
> conlangs, to have the axes be more specific properties (like, "to what
> degree is the conlang intended to be beautiful?" or "to be
> pragmatically useful?" or "to be useful for scientific research?" or
> "how many people does the creator expect to use it?" or "how
> naturalistic is it?" (in either the auxlanger or artlanger sense of
> "naturalistic")), rather than degree of membership in categories which
> themselves already presuppose some congruence of multiple simple
> properties.

Yep - when I wrote "for some time [the Gnoli triangle] has 
not seemed entirely satisfactory to me and I have often 
thought of revising the page.  One model I came up with was 
three-dimensional ..." I was thinking of specific axes in 
the sort of way that Jim is suggesting.

[Interesting stuff read & snipped]

> To that end, I'll go ahead and distentangle the ambiguous
> "naturalistic" property-question above:
>
> a. To what extent is the conlang intended to appear like a
> naturally-evolved human language?
>
> b. How closely is the conlang based on specific natural-language models?
>
> (a) would have a high value and (b) a low value for a priori
> diachronic artlangs like Sindarin or Old Albic.  Both (a) and (b)
> would have a high value for altlangs like Brithenig or Wenedyk, and
> (b) would have even higher values for reconstructed languages like
> proto-Indo European or revived languages like Modern Hebrew.  (a)
> would have a low value and (b) a high value for a posteriori auxlangs
> like Esperanto or Interlingua.
>
> (b) could be broken down further into whether/how closely the conlang
> follows specific natlang models for vocabulary, grammar, semantics
> (etc.).

Then the model becomes a tad complicated    ;)

> Some engelangs follow natlang models for vocabulary, but
> less so for grammar or semantics;

True - AllNoun, for example, just uses English vocabulary:
http://www.panix.com/~tehom/allnoun/allnoun8.faq

But that is a mere convenience. The object of Tom Breton's 
project was to produce a language with only one part of 
speech; the vocabulary was not important. He could have used 
Latin, Mandarin, or anything else, even a pseudo-random 
computer generated list.  Therefore, having to categorize 
AllNoun as high on (b) as regards vocabulary would, in my 
opinion, be misleading - the vocabulary is irrelevant.

> auxlangs tend to follow natlang
> models more closely at multiple levels.

Not those like Ro and Babm   :)

> For that matter, exolangs and weird human artlangs could have multple
> a-properties for whether/how much they look naturalistic in phonology,
> morphology, syntax, semantics, etc.

But if we're not careful we'll finish up with a model that's 
so over-complicated that virtually every conlang has its own 
set of groupings    ;)

IIRC the Gnoli triangle was suggested sometime in the 1990s 
(or does it go back to the 1980s?) - the reason for its 
endurance is partly because of its simplicity.
---------------------------------------------------------

On 20/05/2011 21:11, Jörg Rhiemeier wrote:
 > Hallo conlangers!
 >
 > On Fri, 20 May 2011 12:28:27 +0100, R A Brown wrote:
 >
 >> Sorry - meant to change the subject line on my earlier
 >> email about the "Van Steenbergen Hexagon."   :(
 >>
 >> I've remembered to changed this one.
 >
 > And I have changed it once again ;)
 >
 >> I've looked at more of Jan's presentation.  Altho I'm
 >> less than enthusiastic about the Hexagon,
 >
 > I think the category D (languages for special purposes)
 > can be subsumed into B (engelangs),

I agree.

 > and whether E
 > (reconstructed languages) and F (natlang reform projects)
 > are conlangs at all is debatable,

Indeed - reconstructed languages are attempts to reconstruct 
as far as possible actual _natlangs_ that were either not 
recorded at all or very imperfectly recorded.

 > but category F projects
 > are usually auxlangs in terms of purpose, and the
 > boundary between a natlang reform project and a zonal
 > auxlang is as blurry

Yes, there is a blurry boundary here. IMO natlang reforms 
like Atatürk's Turkish reforms, the various reforms of 
Norwegian etc. are not what we normally think of in terms of 
conlangs.

[snip]

 > at which point does a dialect
 > continuum turn into a language family?).  So there is not
 > very much won with the van Steenbergen Hexagon over the
 > Gnoli-Brown Triangle.

Quite possibly - tho the matter is worth discussing.

My only contribution to the triangle was to replace 
Claudio's 'loglang' category by 'engelang'.  But that was 
because at the time Claudio suggested the triangle the term 
'engelang' had not been coined and 'loglang' had a rather 
broader meaning than it now has.  The concept of the 
triangle and that one can position conlangs at different 
points within the triangle is entirely Claudio Gnoli's.

-- 
Ray
==================================
http://www.carolandray.plus.com
==================================
Nid rhy hen neb i ddysgu.
There's none too old to learn.
[WELSH PROVERB]