Jörg Rhiemeier wrote:
> Hallo!
> On Tue, 26 Feb 2008 19:50:01 +0000, And Rosta wrote:
>> I can say, truthfully & without hyperbole, that I have been saying on this 
>> list longer than anyone that conlangs can be art. Nevertheless I am also 
>> convinced that as an artistic medium conlanging does not lend itself to the 
>> creation of great art that, say, exalts us, or moves us deeply, or gives us 
>> profound insights into life.
> Why not?  Where is the problem?  Why cannot be that a conlang moves
> someone deeply? 

Why not indeed?

I remember very many moons ago (about 50 years ago, in fact), being 
deeply moved when I read Galadriel's song "Ai! laurië lantar lassi 
surinen!..." in 'Farewell to Lórien'. It had the wow-factor! I found it 
stunningly beautiful and moving.

I know beauty is only in the eye of the beholder (or ear of the 
listener) - but I was deeply moved by the words - and, indeed, still am.

> A conlang can express the thoughts and feelings of
> its author as much as, for instance, a piece of music can do.  That,
> at least, is my opinion; for instance, I find Quenya and Sindarin
> very expressive of Tolkien's mindset.

Yes, they probably do. But I must confess, I have never been 
particularly moved by Sindarin - but Quenya, wow!!

David J. Peterson wrote:
 > Aside from that, I'm tired of this discussion.  It's all about 
 > and if two people don't share a definition, and are not willing to
 > agree on a common definition, then it amounts to nothing more
 > than name-calling.

I'm inclined to agree - and it's pushing up the number of mails from the 
list which is OK if one has the leisure to read them all properly - but 
today, I was just skimming through most.

I know, for example, not everyone shares my view of Quenya. Nor do I 
expect them to. We have moved in very subjective areas in this thread 
and I feel David's assessment is true.

Frustra fit per plura quod potest
fieri per pauciora.
[William of Ockham]