Hallo!

On Fri, 12 Mar 2004 14:01:51 EST,
David Peterson <[log in to unmask]> wrote:

> Joerg wrote:
>
> <<The recent discussion on whether Tolkien was a good conlanger,
> and what constitutes a good conlang, brought back to my mind
> the manifesto that Jesse Bangs posted two years ago
> (yesterday was its second anniversary) under the subject line
> "Lighting Some Flames: Towards conlang artistry".>>
>
> Has it really been two years?!   Goodness...
>
> <<snip everything>>
>
> If this is the original post your referencing, you should recall that Jesse
> intentionally overstated his claim, in order to foster discussion.

Yes, I am aware of that.  I wasn't active in the list when the
discussion went on, but I have read some of the posts from the archive.

>       I think
> what fell out of the discussion that followed was that:
>
> (1) Yes, a language should be judged by the goals of its creator.   This was
> an attempt to define the goals of the naturalist school (of which I'm a part,
> if one can say there is such a thing.   I call chancellor!).

Yes (and I am also a naturalist).  If the goals of the author include
naturalness, the language deserves to be judged by its degree of
naturalness, otherwise not.  A philosophical language presented as the
language of a fictional ethnic group that lives God-knows-where would
be a failure, because natural languages aren't like that.  The same
philosophical language presented as, well, a philosophical language,
need not be a failure - its unnaturalness, at least, doesn't count
because the author never stated that naturalism was a design goal.
(It might be a failure for other reasons, though.)

>       What was not
> resolved was the feeling that some have had that a natural conlang might be
> better than a nonnatural one.   This probably goes on a case-by-case
> basis, and
> can truly never be resolved, because it's comparing apples and oranges.   Who
> can say which is better amongst the two?   Well, the eater.   Though
> many might
> prefer both (or neither).

Yes.  There are people here on the list (as well as elsewhere) who are
interested in languages that are markedly different from anything ever
spoken anywhere.  The philosophical language movement, for example,
may have been past its climax long ago, but it hasn't died out yet.
There are people who design engelangs and don't care a shoot about
naturalist conlangs.  That's their right.  Just because I prefer
naturalist artlangs I wouldn't conclude that non-naturalist conlangs
were bad art.  They are simply not the same style of art.

> (2) I believe the point of scale was discussed.   I can't remember what fell
> out from that discussion, but it was probably something similar to the
> discussion this time.   I think what makes this argument difficult is
> that, compared
> to any other artform, it's hard to make a small conlang.   I mean, there are
> haiku, minute-long songs, minimalist visual art, etc., but what is a small
> conlang?   If you're actually creating a language, you have to
> eventually come to
> terms with the fact that the language will need to be able to express
> everything that's expressible in the given worldview you're operating
> under.   Since
> there are no small worlds (and since the mind is infinite, in a way), it'd be
> hard to imagine a language where you only needed like three words and no
> compounds.   (Maybe the language of the little prince, when he was
> living on that
> tiny planet?)   So, in one sense, yes, it is very true that quantity doesn't
> equal quality.   On the other hand, though, languages are not small things:
> They're very large things.   It's hard to quantify this.

This is true.  Languages are by their nature large and complex
systems; in fact, they are so large and complex that no conlang can
ever really claim to be "complete".  Some get close to completeness
in having thousands of words and very detailed grammars, others are
less complete because they have only a few hundred words or their
grammar remains sketchy.  Nevertheless, I don't agree with those who
reject brief sketches becuase of their incompleteness.  Of course,
a brief sketch is only a fragment of a language, but that doesn't
necessarily mean that it is bad conlanging.  After all, a sketch
has the potential to be expanded into a more complete conlang later.

> (3) I'm also fairly certain that the "creativity" claim was hedged in much
> the way it was with our discussion.   The point was to emphasize how
> someone who
> codes over English, or whatever their L1 is, is not creating a good,
> naturalist conlang.

Exactly.  Good naturalist conlanging involves choosing features
*consciously*, being aware of alternatives and not emulating a
particular natlang.

>       Of course, it doesn't follow that you *have* to
> try to create a
> language that's totally different.   In fact, I'd argue that it'd be just as
> bad if your native language was English, but you went out and found a Dyirbal
> grammar and basically coded *it* over.

I agree.  Such a relex of Dyirbal might look like a very original
creation to anyone who has never seen a sketch of Dyirbal, but it is
actually just as bad as a relex of English.

>       It's the act of coding-over that he
> wanted to single out   here.   Everything should have a reason
> behind it that's
> not, "Well, that's the way I think it should be", when the result of "that's
> the way I think it should be" turns out to be identical to the creator's L1.
> This doesn't prohibit intuitions about the way the language works, or working
> by "feel".

Very true.  Actually, I have been working very much by "feel" in my
Albic conlangs.  I chose features because they "felt right" to me.
And I want to create something that's different from my L1 (German)
as well as from English; instead, I drew insiprations from Tolkien's
Elvish, Latin, Greek, Celtic and Caucasian languages.

> [examples from Zhyler and Megdevi snipped]

Greetings,

Jörg.