Print

Print


On Mon, Mar 3, 2008 at 3:32 AM, John Vertical <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
>  >Certainly some conlangers want that and don't want any interaction
>  >from others, or perhaps only a "ooh pretty" and nothing more
>  >substantial - and where this is the case, it should by all means be
>  >respected. But my suspicion is that more people want feedback than
>  >don't.
>
>  Isn't *this list* for feedback?

Absolutely.

But it's not the *exclusive* place for that. Why not have these
discussions *also* happen in a place where the reference material is
right there on the next page, and all discussion is about the language
at hand?

>  >... which, btw, is why the "Purpose" page as I proposed it is crucial.
>
>  A suspicion of mine is that very very few conlangers have anything
>  resembling a "purpose" to go with, beyond the basic artlang vs auxlang vs
>  engelang division (and in some cases, like me, not even that.) It becomes
>  clarified over time as the language itself progresses, it isn't something
>  you begin with & keep around as a reference.

Oh, certainly. I'm sorry if that wasn't clear.

"Purpose" will most likely be, for artlangs, a fairly aesthetic
statement. E.g. that they want it to have ___ feel, appropriate for
___ culture, etc.

What I'd point to as an excellent example of this in my recent memory
is Donald Boozer's talk about Drushek at LCC2. It had a very clear
purpose, even if he didn't state it in quite such an overt way.

*With* an understanding of the author's creative intent like that, you
can have a conversation about how they might go about fulfilling it.
Without it, you can't because it'd be too presumptuous.

In any case, I see this as a semi? separate issue from the question of
merging itself, since it's a question of how (or whether) to encourage
editing of articles about a language by people other than the author.
Whereas merging as such is a question of how to combine content
without loss, ensure it's all accessible, etc.

Also, this is not quite what I had in mind as a more probable normal
scenario; again probably just due to failure of clarity on my part.

First, people could help each others' presentation. Not everyone has
e.g. John Quijada's skill in that regard, yet they may well have just
as much skill in conlanging per se. Why should their creations not get
the same treatment, where possible, so that they have the attention
they deserve?

Second, people could help categorize and standardize each others'
content simply to make it, again, more accessible. Suppose you want to
look up a (say) naturalistic artlang that has clicks and translation
of the Babel text. Doing so now is difficult; you have to rely on
someone knowing someone who's done it. If it were categorized well, it
wouldn't be.

- Sai