I moved this reply to a different thread because, clearly, this doesn't have anything
to do with the continually evolving saga of the amicus brief.

I will only say, however, that it would seem the LCS is being taken seriously in this
thing. After all, if Paramount are bitching about the "timeliness" of the brief, and 
are willing to pay their legal team to bother to contest the brief, then they are at 
least aware of its contents are are viewing the LCS as an Authority. Chapeau!

As usual, the following are my opinions only...

Before moving on to replies, I would note that no one has yet (as of this writing)
mentioned the ethics of imposing a constructed language on an innocent third party. 
Here of course I mean those intrepid few who have chosen, not just to teach a few 
words or phrases, but rather to make their kids bilingual Klingon speakers or what 
have you.

Any comments on this kind of experimentation? Does anyone discriminate between
art- and aux- as far as this ethical issue is concerned?

I hold that there is a distinction to be made between teaching a child an artlang vs
an auxlang as  his cradle language (either in conjunction with or to the exclusion
of any natural language). Given the age & maturity of (in particular) E-o as a language
& given its nature as an auxiliary / second language, I find its use as a second cradle
language much less objectionable than the more reprehensible (ab)use of Klingon or
Sindarin or an individual glossopoet using his own creation in this way.

Jim Henry <[log in to unmask]> wrote:

> Galen Buttitta <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
>
> > Well, as to cultural appropriation: Pirahã has evidential morphemes and may be
>
> I am not sure what the boundaries of cultural appropriation are, or
> whether I am sure that it is always and inherently wrong; but I'm
> pretty sure taking one feature from a language (which probably isn't
> unique to that language) is not cultural appropriation.  

I would agree with this. I actually rather despise the whole concept of 
"cultural appropriation" as an inherently evil thing. After all, how would 
modern Western culture have evolved at all if "we" (or our cultural 
ancestors in France & England) had not appropriated Greek democracy & 
philosophy, Roman architecture,  Germanic mythology, Hebrew religion 
and ethics? And all this without ever asking the Greeks or the Jews or the 
Italians whether or not they wouldn't mind? You see, humans are naturally 
inquisitive, natural mimics. If we see something that works, we add it to 
the store of what we know already. Kids do this naturally when they play
games; adults do this at work. Languages borrow / steal from one another
and so do cultures. It's no different for an artist making up his own culture
or language. The only difference is that the process is more transparent.

It's a nicety to leave some kind of working notes behind you as you work, 
but not a requirement and not a sign of cultural imperialism or pillage if 
you use a language feature from somewhere and don't credit it. Heck, if I 
had to go back now and create an annotated credit list of cultures, 
languages and people that inspired me, I'd probably have to spend the 
rest of my life combing through every little turn of phrase, every piece of 
cultural or linguistic apparatus. Sure, some homages are pretty 
transparent, but others are now opaque even to me!

Art thus risks becoming a drudge of annotational paperwork rather than a 
celebration of human ingenuity and creativity and universality.

That said, I do agree that cultural appropriation is an issue (the Nazi 
appropriation & perversion of cultural symbols comes to mind); but 
as far as the individual glossopoet is concerned, the morality and 
ethics here really come to the balance of  "your right to express 
yourself (via making a language)" vs "my right to be culturally 
outraged (by my perception of theft of cultural heritage)". At least in
the US, the right to freedom of self expression, and in particular via the 
written word, is held more sacred than the right of groups or individuals 
to prevent the use of cultural properties.

A conscientious glossopoet would, I think, be unlikely to seek to harm 
a whole culture or any individual members of it through outright theft 
of such cultural property. It's one thing for art to imitate life, but quite 
another for it to slavishly copy it! That said, I think that our works of
art ought to be subject to open criticism -- if I take an Australian
language and relex it, and use it in a story where I've taken Australian
religion and culture and copied them, I think I could rightfully expect
to be lambasted for the effort. On the other hand, if I take certain
chosen aspects of those languages & cultures and weave them in
with other threads into a completely different and new tapestry, even
thought some patterns within it might be recogniseable, then I don't
think the Australians would have an argument, and the art could
simply be criticised for its own self rather than as a copy-n-paste job.

> Taking lots of features from the same natlang, especially if the speakers'
> conculture is also based largely on the culture of the natlang's
> speakers, might  be cultural appropriation.   Whether that's wrong is
> another issue, 

Yes. I think this would largely depend on how pervasive and how specific
the appropriation is. Language features are largely covered by ANADEW,
as we already know. If a natural language currently does X, then there
are now, or were at one time, or will be in future a dozen more languages
that also do X. But it also depends on what the artist dóes with that
material. Is it a blatant rip-off, or is it artfully rewoven into something
new?

> which at least partly depends on whether the natlang's
> speakers object and how the conlanger responds to their objections.
> (Many Australian aborigines apparently object strongly to their
> religion being used as mythological background in fantasy novels.
> Attribution isn't the issue, permission is.  Some other cultures, not
> so much.)

I don't remember Andres Serrano asking permission to toss a crucifix
into a cup of piss. I don't remember the US Government asking permission
when the National Endowment for the Arts sponsored organization
Southeastern Center for Contemporary Art awarded him a medal for his
good aim. 

I'm not debating whether or not Serrano's work is art or not -- I do hold,
however, that he does not need anyone's permission to do art. Just do it
and let the chips fall where they may.


> Robert Dessaix keeps his conlang secret, even to its true name (he
> calls it "K" when he occasionally talks about it).   Javant Biarujia
> kept his conlang secret for a long time, but eventually published it.
> I kept my gjâ-zym-byn secret for the first couple of years, but
> eventually published some of its grammar, and then more, including the
> lexicon.

Most of mine are kept secret. I've only ever "published" the grammar 
to Kerno (but that because of its nature as part of a group project in the
public domain). As I see it, my interest is in expressing something deep inside
in a language other than English and thus in having to discover and
record that language other than English. If someone is crazy enough to
want to learn it, well, that's their issue. It's not my job to provide lessons
and tutorials!

And Rosta wrote:

> For me this is not a matter specific to conlangs. Platonic things (i.e. ideas) 
> cannot justly by owned. They're like natural resources in that respect. 

Some platonic things, I would agree, would be improper to consider ownable.
A life-saving technology, an improved way of farming. Others, no they can
indeed be justly owned.

Since we're talking of languages, I would agree here in terms of a natural
language.

A natural language, be it English or ancient Greek, is the property of a
community of speakers and ought by natural law be shared with anyone
willing to learn it (and thus become a naturalised member of that community,
or at least someone needing to interact with it).

However, a *constructed* language is no longer a mere natural resource
but is now a piece of wrought art. The glossopoet has taken the natural
resources of human language and has, through secret alchemies made them
into a new creation, a thing belonging soully to its creator. It is solely at the
discretion of the glossopoet whether or not to share any part of it. It's like
your own inner song or your soul name. You do not share these things
lightly and, no, society as a whole does not have a claim on these platonic
things.

> But it is in society's interests to find a non-ownership-based way to 
> remunerate discoverers of natural resources and discoverers (or 'inventors') 
> of platonic things. I assume that ownership of X entails the right to deny 
> others usufruct of X.

No argument re actual natural resources. Water, minerals, food sources.

I would amend this only by saying that the creator of the platonic thing in
question -- the glossopoet -- must be willing to hand over that thing. If he 
wishes to keep it a secret, or wishes to keep its inner workings to himself, 
that's his own business. Also keep in mind that this particular platonic thing 
is a work of art, not a cure for cancer or a recipe for transparent aluminium!

No one in society actually benefits from knowing or truly loses anything by 
not knowing how Queranaran works.  If I knew how to cure cancer, I would
feel morally and ethically obligated to share that knowledge. I feel and indeed
accept no such obligations to share more of my languages and worlds than I
am willing to make public.