Hallo conlangers!

On Saturday 25 August 2012 23:36:19 Padraic Brown wrote:

> --- On Sat, 8/25/12, Jörg Rhiemeier <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
> > From: Jörg Rhiemeier <[log in to unmask]>
> [...]
> > How many artlangs "weren't made haphazardly"? 
> 
> My point was really that B was really far more of a deliberate construction
> than many of our conlangs are, at least at their beginning stages. I
> think it's clear that Andrew had some specific design principles in mind
> when he started out, as well as certain intended goals.

Sure.  There is much more of what I call "conceptioneering"
in Brithenig than in most other artlangs.  Certainly so!
 
> > How many
> > artlangs were made with "very specific design principles and
> > goals in mind"?  Many; in fact, most of the better ones.
> 
> Perhaps, but not in the same way. We all have some kind of design
> principle in mind; but I do think Andrew went about it a little differently
> with B.

Yes; his design was not that much driven by an "ideal" of a
language (as was, for instance, Quenya), but by a "what-if"
question, and he took a scholarly approach to it by analysing
what it means to be "British" and what it means to be "Romance".
From that point, he proceeded to modify the sound changes of
Welsh in order to fit them onto the phonology of Vulgar Latin
and apply those modified sound changes to it.  I did just the
same with Roman Germanech, only that I used, of course, the
sound changes of German.
 
> > If someone goes forth to create an artlang haphazardly, the
> > most likely outcome is an incoherent mess.
> 
> Well of course. I've made some of those!

So did I!

>       And I'm certainly not saying
> that artlangs are all incoherent messes!

Of course not!  I have seen several artlangs that are incoherent
messes; but the good ones of course aren't.

> > Consider my own Old Albic.  You probably agree with me that
> > it is an artlang. 
> 
> Yes. Though I would qualify this by saying that I don't really know that
> much about the thought process behind it nor whatever kinds of planning
> or methods that went into it. All I know that it's a lovely looking
> language.

Thank you!

> > [amount of thought that went into Old Albic]
> > 
> > So, there is very much thought and "conceptioneering" (if
> > there is such a word; if not, I may coin it now) that went
> > into this language.  Is it an engelang by your
> > definition?
> > Perhaps yes. 
> 
> No, it is not "an engelang" by by definition (and, again, neither is B!) --
> however, I would say that, like B, certain qualities of the engineered
> may be playing a part.

Agreed.  Old Albic and Brithenig both aren't engelang, though
they indeed have "certain qualities of the engineered", as you
call it.  They are what I suggest naming "high-concept artlangs".
 
> > Yet, most people here would certainly say that
> > it is not an engelang in the same way such languages as Ars
> > signorum, Lojban or brx are engelangs. 
> 
> Indeed, and nor would I!

Sure; you never did.

> > That is because Old
> > Albic, despite all that "conceptioneering" that want into it,
> > is not meant as a _reconstruction_ of what *probably* has
> > been, but a _re-creation_ (as I call it) of what *could* have
> > been, and the overall motivation is one of aesthetics (I try
> > to construct a language of a "culture of my heart" which is
> > a vehicle of artistic self-expression) and of *fun*.
> 
> Quite so!

Fine.
 
> > Old Albic may perhaps be somewhat more "engelangy" than many
> > other artlangs, but it still is fundamentally an artlang.
> > In Ray's coloured Gnoli Triangle, it may be a bit bluish,
> > but certainly green (and no trace of reddishness as it is
> > not at all meant as an auxlang)!
> 
> Fair enough! I rather think that I haven't said anything terribly different
> about B. Green with a hint of blue. As you yourself said: "The 'cool' blue
> colour fits the 'cool' 'objective' atmosphere of engelangs" -- I guess I
> just see a little more of this "cool objective atmosphere" about Brithenig
> than other people do!

There is, even if the product does not feel as "engelangy" as
Lojban or Liva do; though of course I know artlangs (even *good*
artlangs) that are much less "engelangy" than Brithenig.

> > > [Andrew's authorship of B. and suggestions of others]
> > 
> > I wasn't yet here when that was discussed, so I cannot say much
> > on this matter, but I have always considered Brithenig to be
> > Andrew's creation, even if he solicited opinions and perhaps
> > worked in an idea or two that came from someone else.
> 
> Yep. I never said otherwise! As I said, opinions were solicited and
> entertained -- and I think some of them were persuasive enough to be
> accepted -- but the final product was his alone.
> 
> Twasn't a whole lot different than people asking for opinions on Conlang
> now. Just because someone comes up with a brilliant solution, that doesn't
> mean they created the language! It just means they helped out a bit.

Absolutely correct.
 
> > Languages such as Brithenig or Old Albic are indeed in a
> > way more "engelangy" than most other artlangs.  Still, I won't
> > say they are engelangs, rather they are what could be
> > called "high-concept artlangs".
> 
> Perhaps. Keep in mind that I never said B *is* an engelang; only that if
> it isn't, it has some tendencies in that direction.

Right.  And that fits it quite well.

>       To put it in Ray's
> technicolor scheme: definitely on the green side of glas, but with just
> enough blue to keep it out of that corner. And definitely no red at all.

Sure.
 
> [...]
> 
> > Ah, *that* box:  http://i.imgur.com/qYLgT.png
> > 
> > Proposed by Mil on the Relay list on August 17.
> 
> Yeah. Bloody boxes and triangles! But I guess that's where it's at anymore.
> 
> [...]
>  
> > Brithenig was chosen for that corner because it is a
> > realistic
> > (i.e., naturalistic) a posteriori conlang made for an
> > artistic
> > purpose.  I think it *does* belong there despite the
> > extensive
> > conceptioneering that went into it, and is the best-known
> > conlang that fits there.
> 
> Okay! So in other words, a political decision -- whether it actually
> fits best or not (you say tomayto, I say tomahto), but it is well enough
> known!
> 
> I guess we can commence to argue, then, as to how well known Ro and Vorlin
> are! -- just kidding!
 
Certainly, the question of which conlang represents a given type
best is one over which debates without end can be held.

> [...]
> > You say yourself that a conlanger can set goals in his
> > language
> > creation without making an engelang or even a hybrid
> > artistic-
> > engelang - and Brithenig is IMHO a fine example of what you
> > say!
> 
> Well, what *I'm* saying it is is something of a hybrid: clearly artistic
> but with some engineering involved.

We can agree on that.
 
> > > [Kerno]
> > 
> > I don't know Kerno well enough to decide how well-crafted it
> > is,
> > but I have to admit that I like Brithenig better. 
> 
> And I think this makes sense -- we tend to like things that fit our own
> sense of aesthetics and good design.

Certainly.

>       Just to waylay any future criticism,
> I am not saying I dislike Brithenig! But, it was never my favorite of all
> the conlangs I'd met at that time. I have always admired Andrew's
> engineering, his design principles, but I recognise that we didn't share
> those principles. You and he, I think, did to a large degree.

Yes.  Brithenig comes close to the way I would approach the
question of a Britanno-Romance conlang (after all, I used
essentially the same approach in my Germano-Romance conlang).
Even Old Albic is quite similar to Brithenig in this regard
in carefully emulating the diachronic development of a
language.
 
> > Brithenig looks
> > very nice and plausible, while Kerno has created more of the
> > image of a hodge-podge in me. 
> 
> And I don't think I would disagree. Different principles at work. Not as
> much of the engineering principles that went into B or your O.A.

Apparently not.
 
> > If you say that "it was entirely composed
> > of fancy and cemented together with what [you] liked at the
> > time", then my impression perhaps was right ;)
> 
> So it would seem! I freely admit to bringing more whimsy and fancy into
> it than deliberate planning and engineering. Different stokes for different
> folks, as they say.

Sure.  And I can't say that Kerno was a "bad" artlang; it is
simply of a different style!  Likewise, I would hesitate to
say that the Sex Pistols made "worse" music than Yes - it just
happens to be that the music of Yes moves me more because it
displays qualities that appeal to me while the music of the
Sex Pistols doesn't, and the music I'd like to do myself is
closer to that of Yes than to that of the Sex Pistols.  These
two bands are exponents of different *genres*, and are thus
hard to compare.  But I am digressing.
 
> > This reminds me of the early beginnings of Old Albic, when I
> > cobbled together a descendant of Sindarin which I called
> > "Nur-
> > ellen".  It was a mess. 
> 
> I recall Nur-Ellen! Honestly, I appreciate O.A. better than the earlier
> model. I think it speaks with your voice better.

Thanks.  Nur-ellen did not really speak with my voice.
It was like trying to express myself by cutting recordings of
Tolkien's words into pieces and trying to construct my own
words from those.
 
> [...]
> > Yes.  Brithenig set new standards in a posteriori
> > artlanging.
> 
> I don't think it set new standards so much as created a new type of
> artlang. As if there was "a previous standard" to which we all had to
> adhere in order to be admitted to the ranks of the artlanger, and now
> had to convert to the "new standard" if we hoped to remain! No, he simply
> chose what perhaps at the time was a novel approach and thereby created a
> new niche.

Yes; your words fit it better.
 
> [...]
> 
> > Oh, I see a vast difference between Liva and
> > Brithenig! 
> 
> Again, I'm not comparing two languages or seeking an equivalence! What I
> am saying is both Brithenig and Liva "have elements of both artlang and
> loglang/engelang".

Sure.

>       That doesn't mean they have the same amounts of each
> or that they are the same kind of language or anything like that. All I
> mean is that B doesn't fit squarely in any of the three broadly accepted
> categories with 100% snugness.

Yes; Brithenig is "bluish green", and Liva is "greenish blue".
 
> > Liva is a "loglang-as-artlang" - a loglang meant to be elegant
> > and beautiful. 
> 
> Perhaps Brithenig is an "artlang-as-engelang" -- an artlang that has some
> qualities of the engelang...

It certainly does.
 
> [...]
> 
> > It is indeed somewhere in between, but certainly closer to
> > the
> > green corner of the triangle than to the blue (while Liva is
> > much closer to the blue).
> 
> Indeed. While neither of them are exactly and precisely green or blue
> (depending). *That* was my whole point with that other box.

Right.
 
> [...]
> > That is, you have no idea how to objectively evaluate it ;)
> > Well, I don't have any idea, either.
> 
> And just because I don't know doesn't mean it can't be done...

Sure.  Many things are done today of which people had no idea
how to do it just a century ago!

On Sunday 26 August 2012 10:59:41 R A Brown wrote:

> On 25/08/2012 20:29, Jörg Rhiemeier wrote:
> > Hallo conlangers!
> > 
> > On Saturday 25 August 2012 21:09:59 R A Brown wrote:
> > 
> > [
> > 
> >> snip] 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
> 
> Right!  Interesting arrangement and one IMO worth
> considering.

I think so, too.

>       I have in the past experimented with going
> into 3-D representation.  But, probably because I began with
> the Gnoli triangle, I never got satisfactory results.  This
> one has ditched the conventional auxlang-artlang-engelang
> triad and come up with something more original.  Interesting.
> I don't know Naeso or Kotava,

I don't know them well, either.  Naeso apparently is a
collaborative effort by some people on the #conlang IRC
channel.  Kotava apparently is an a priori auxlang.
(All the four "pragmatic" languages in the box are, at least
essentially, auxlangs.  Vorlin AFAIK started as an auxlang
- did the name originally mean "world language"?  It sounds
like that - but Rick Harrison later abandoned that goal and
pursued the language further as an artlang.)

>       but I sort of see the logic
> behind the placing of the other conlangs.
> 
> The one thing that screams at me is that there is no corner
> labeled "engelang"!

Yes, this is a problem.  Where does one put something like
Lojban?  Somewhere between Volapük and Vorlin?

> It is put into the a_posteriori realism artism corner.  I
> would not quarrel with that, since:
> - it is a_posteriori in vocabulary, morphology & syntax;
> - it aims to be a realistic model of what a British Romance
> language _might_ have looked like;
> - it is, as nearly everyone has agreed, the creation of
> artistry and Andrew himself made t clear t was not created
> for practical use (pragmatism) but for fun.
> 
> As far as I can see, the argument about whether Brithenig
> has any of the characteristics of an engelang or not is a
> bit of a red herring.

Yes.
 
> If I had been involved from the start, the thing I would
> have questioned are the axes.  IMO the a_priori ~
> a_posteriori is meaningful only an auxlang context.

It *can* be applied to *any* conlang, but it is not really
very meaningful with languages other than auxlangs.

>       To
> place Quenya firmly in the a_posteriori realism artism
> corner is IMO misleading.

It is in the "a priori realism artism" corner.
 
> Quenya is, indeed, a_priori as regards vocabulary; but it is
> a_posteriori as syntax; the morphology is a_posteriori as
> regards the features marked, but a_priori as regards the
> actual forms chosen.  Its phonology is a_posteriori.

Yes.

>       But
> even the foregoing is a simplification. The influence of of
> classical Greek, Latin and of Finnish is so pervasive in the
> language, just as the influence of Old English and, even
> more so, Welsh in Sindarin.  To call either Quenya or
> Sindarin a_priori is IMO misleading and unhelpful.

Sure.  They aren't really good examples for that corner.
 
> Similarly where would a language like Tom Breton's Allnoun
> be placed in this square?  Certainly the grammar is
> a_priori.  But as Tom applied the grammar to English for
> purposes of illustration, that rather makes Allnoun
> a_posteriori as regards vocabulary & phonology.

Yes; this is a problem.
 
> [snip]
> [snip]
> 
> >> 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.
> 
> Only partly so.  As i say above, I do not think the a_priori
> ~ a_posteriori difference has much meaning with regard to
> artlangs or engelangs; indeed, it seems to me that it can be
> unhelpful and misleading

Yes.  With artlangs, it is certainly more interesting whether
the language is naturalistic or not!  And with engelangs, the
source of the vocabulary is secondary to the design goals.
The category "a priori/a posteriori" was invented by the
auxlangers, and indeed applies best to auxlangs.

--
... 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