Print

Print


Je 05.21 atm 2007.02.24, Antonielly Garcia RODRIGUES skribis
>On 2/24/07, Jens Wilkinson <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
>
>>Although this
>>might be difficult, I almost think it would be best
>>for a language designer to resist the creation of a
>>solid body of literature and just use the language for
>>communication.
>
>Even the most successful conlangs have a relatively small speaking
>community[*] compared to languages that most people want to learn. It
>implies not many opportunities for using the language in real-world
>communication, as the chances of accidentally finding conlang speakers
>out there without explicitly looking for them are slim. So, if the
>conlang does not have a minimal body of literature[**] either written
>in it or involving it in some nice story, it borders on being
>completely unattractive for most potential speakers.
>
>(*) I hope nobody will say that Esperanto has a huge speaking
>community. I don't want to discuss it in this thread; it is not the
>focus of my argument.

Large enough, I fear, that some of us have the opportunity to speak 
the language on a more or less regular daily basis, in person or by phone.

>[**] We can consider that Klingon, Quenya and Sindarin originally had
>some attractive "literature" to back them. In the case of Klingon, it
>was not exactly "literature", but I think you got the idea.

In both cases, however, the literature was in some other language 
than the ones mentioned. Well, I suppose not completely -- Tolkien 
gave a very few poems in Elvish, and there was a touch of Klingon 
opera in one episode of one of the Star Trek arcs.



-- Don HARLOW
http://www.webcom.com/~donh/don/don.html
Opinions (in English): http://www.harlows.org/don/opinions/
Esperanto (in English): http://www.harlows.org/don/esperanto/
Literaturo (Esperante): http://donh.best.vwh.net/Esperanto/Literaturo