Hallo conlangers!

On Saturday 25 August 2012 21:09:59 R A Brown wrote:

> Ah well, I'll use up the last of my daily email allowance  ;)
> 
> I said at the start that I had avoided this thread.  There
> are different schemes of classifying conlangs; Jan van
> Steenbergan gives one on:
> http://steen.free.fr/classificatie.html
> 
> I'm content with the Gnoli triangle   ;)

So am I.  Further qualifications can be useful, though,
such as "a priori/a posteriori" or "naturalistic/schematic".
 
> On 25/08/2012 18:20, Padraic Brown wrote:
> > --- On Sat, 8/25/12, R A Brown wrote:
> [snip]
> 
> >> I fail to see how that is implied in Andrew's
> >> description.
> > 
> > Simply in the way it was done. Brithenig wasn't made
> > haphazardly.
> 
> So, if a language is made haphazardly, it's an artlang, and
> if it's made systematically it's an engelang!

Absurd.  See my reply on Padraic's post.
 
> > It had a, in my opinion anyway, very specific design
> > principles and goals in mind.
> 
> I beg to differ; "to create a Romance language that might
> have evolved if Latin speakers had been a sufficient number
> to displace Old Celtic as the spoken language of the people
> in Great Britain" - _might have_ does not strike me as
> specific, but fuzzy.

But certainly!
 
> Applying Welsh sound changes to Vulgar Latin may be a
> specific aim, but as I and others have pointed out it cannot
> be done in a purely engineering way because we're not
> starting with the same phonology as ancient British.  we
> have to _guess_ with certain Vulgar Latin features.

This is indeed the case.
 
> > To my way of thinking, no matter how artistically it is
> > done, it can't be anything other than a hybrid.
> 
> With respect, a hybrid is rather different.  I got drawn
> into this by the statement: "Not at all. Naturalism is
> engelangy, because it is objectively evaluable, and
> Brithenig is a good example of a conlang that is entirely
> naturalistic and entirely engelinguistic."

And this statement strikes me as absurd.
 
> I do not agree that Brithenig is _entirely_ engelinguistic.
>   It clearly is not.

Right.
 
> 
> [snip]
> 
> >> That is not my recollection.  I was very much under the
> >> impression that Brithenig was largely Andrew's work.
> > 
> > And I never said it wasn't. Note "help in". Andrew
> > solicited opinions; opinions were given. He was always
> > free to accept, reject or modify as he saw fit.
> 
> Exactly - I did question some points of orthography.  But
> choosing to adopt a modified version of modern Welsh
> orthography was IMO an aesthetic and artlangy thing.  I see
> nothing engelengy about it.

Sure!  An engelanger would probably have chosen a much more
straightforward romanization than a modified version of modern
Welsh orthography (though that orthography *does* come close
to being strictly phonemic, even if it uses some letters, e.g.
_f_ and _u_, in uncommon ways).
 
> [snip]
> 
> > Yep. This doesn't really change much. Hobby or no, there
> > were still goals and methods that in my opinion nudge
> > the end result a little further up the scale towards
> > engelangdom than any purely artistic language.
> 
> Once again, that's beside the point.  I never claimed
> Brithenig was _purely_ artlang.  It's the claim that it's
> _entirely_ engelang that I and some others object to.

Yes.
 
> [snip]
> 
> >> Box? Who said anything about a box?
> > 
> > A box is what appeared on the graph in question. You
> > know, a squarish thing, eight corners?
> 
> Thank you - I know darn well what a box is.  I haven't a
> clue what graph this is, nor am I interested.  Indeed. if
> it's one that means a language has to be stuck into a
> artlang or engelang pigeon-hole, with no allowance for any
> hybridization, then IMO it's a poor system.

This box: http://i.imgur.com/qYLgT.png
 
> >> Haven't you heard of the Gnoli triangle?
> > 
> > Yes. Tis one of many ways to classify conlangs. Maybe I
> > wasn't refering to one of those??
> > 
> > Anyway, what I was refering to was the graphical
> > representation in the original post I was responding to.
> > The one that got this whole line of Brithenig related
> > discussion going. Put simply, one corner of the box was
> > marked "artistic" in opposition to something like
> > "engineered", and I'm assuming there is some kind of
> > continuum between the corner points.
> 
> If there's a continuum between the two points, why are some
> insisting on shoving Brithenig into the engelang corner!!

Only And seems to do that.  All others in this thread say
that Brithenig has both artlangy and engelangy qualities, but
there is still disagreement on how much it has of what.
(Padraic says that Brithenig was much like Liva, but these
two languages are very different.  Brithenig is much "greener"
than Liva!)
 
> > My question was, and still is, why a language with
> > clearly engineered tendencies is used as the paradigm
> > language for the artistic point on the spectrum,
> 
> I have not, nor would, use Brithenig as a paradigm for the
> artlang point.  What's wrong with Sindarin, Quenya or Teonaht?

The point in question is a point in a three-dimensional space
characterized by "artistic" (as opposed to "pragmatic"),
"realistic" (as opposed to "abstract") and "a posteriori"
(as opposed to "a priori").  What is "wrong" with Sindarin,
Quenya and Teonaht is that they are a priori.
 
> So I cannot answer that point.
> 
> [snip]
> 
> >> You stated a specific goal.
> > 
> > Okay, then. What is "Germanic"? Specifically.
> 
> Yet, apparently, according to you and And Romanic can be
> defined specifically and measured for success or otherwise!

These language families are well-defined and one can check
whether a conlang can be derived from Proto-Germanic or
Proto-Romance by plausible path of diachronic development.
 
> [snip]
> 
> > Could be. I feel that Brithenig is in a similar boat,
> > hence my original question!
> 
> I have not responded to your original question, mainly
> because I don't know it.  I replied to And Rosta's claim:
> "Brithenig is a good example of a conlang that is entirely
> naturalistic and entirely engelinguistic."
> 
> I do not agree that it is "entirely engelinguistic."

Nor do I.
 
> [snip]
> 
> > Yep. Well, as I said before, this is simply because B is
> > somewhere between the extremes -- if it were a full
> > fledged engelang, we wouldn't even be engaging in this
> > discussion.
> 
> Exactly my point!  So I don't quite see why you were
> disagreeing with me.
>  
> > Neither is it a full fledged artlang.
> 
> Never claimed it was.  All I've been arguing against is the
> absurd claim that Brithenig is a 100% engelang.
> 
> In my view, very few, if any, conlangs are 100% auxlang,
> artlang or engelang.

Amen!

--
... brought to you by the Weeping Elf
http://www.joerg-rhiemeier.de/Conlang/index.html
"Bêsel asa Éam, a Éam atha cvanthal a cvanth atha Éamal." - SiM 1:1