--- On Sun, 5/29/11, MorphemeAddict <[log in to unmask]> wrote:

> Padraic Brown <[log in to unmask]>
> wrote:
> > We know that language changes over the years -- anyone
> > can read Beowulf
> > and Ancrene Wisse and Trolius and Criseyde and Hamlet
> > and Pride and
> > Prejudice and Red October and can see the change first
> > hand. What is this
> > change if not the subtle strokes and careful
> > adjustments of a whole race
> > of conlangers? Not acting as individual artists but as
> > communal builders
> > and renovators of an ever new mode of speech?
> I think that to be a conlanger one must deliberately create the new
> language or part thereof. The unthinking use of language by most speakers
> doesn't make them conlangers.

I don't think either Ray is and I know I am not saying that "everyone is
a conlanger" in the sense we usually reserve for the word (a glossopoet). 

What we're saying is there is not a vast nomans land between conlangs and 
natlangs. Both are the result of some creative energy being applied to communications. There is a creative process ongoing. We all participate in 
the creation of language -- most of us participate by simply using and 
passing on  our native tongue; others create novel languages.

Note that I distinguished between "individual artists" (conlangers) and
"communal builders" (ordinary users and constructors of the social
project called 'language').

Think of it like cooking: everyone has to eat, so (nearly) everyone 
prepares food. Not everyone is a top chef. But some of us *have* invented

> stevo