Print

Print


On 2009-05-24 Rik Roots wrote:
> Or are you suggesting that every neophyte conlanger is 
> given equal status with, say, Tolkein?
> 

I'm suggesting that here are so many different tastes
among us that one can't create any hierarchies based
on what one may call "conlanging style", or completeness.
The amount of work, study and thought going into a conlang
is perhaps more objectively measurable, and I'd say they
rank in the opposite order I gave them above:  I at least
value higher a small sketch into which has gone a lot of
thought over a conlang with a big lexicon and a lot of
texts but created without much thought.

I'm also suggesting that dividing us into the great,
the good, the mediocre and the bad will put undesirable
preasure (and incentive for vanity and imperiousness)
on those towards the top of the hierarchy and discourage
those towards the bottom, perhaps depriving them of a
chance to develop in the art.

Also even Homer nodded sometimes.  I'm sure he'd
misspell the names of his heroes from time to time,
hadn't he been blind and if he could write.
Even the great (including Tolkien) perform
badly at times, and even the bad have moments
of greatness, so no, I don't think we should
pass around medals of rank and rods of authority.

/BP 8^)>
-- 
Benct Philip Jonsson -- melroch atte melroch dotte se
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
  "C'est en vain que nos Josués littéraires crient
  à la langue de s'arrêter; les langues ni le soleil
  ne s'arrêtent plus. Le jour où elles se *fixent*,
  c'est qu'elles meurent."           (Victor Hugo)