Jörg Rhiemeier, On 30/05/2011 14:52:
> Hallo conlangers!
> On Sunday 29 May 2011 22:50:09, And Rosta wrote:
>> Jörg Rhiemeier, On 26/05/2011 18:07:
>> [...]
>>> If the preference of the author is to be logical, a personal
>>> language may simultaneously be a loglang.  (I don't think,
>>> though, that it is a good idea to have a language be a loglang
>>> and a fictional human natlang.  Human ethnic languages tend
>>> not to be loglangs, to put it politely.)
>> For a language to be a loglang and a fictional human natlang might be an
>> implausible idea, in that the fictional world might be unnaturalistic, but
>> I wouldn't agree that it is "not a good idea". It might be a
>> utopian/eutopian idea, and eutopian fiction has its virtues.
> I explicitly spoke of "fictional human *natlangs*".  There is
> nothing wrong with a fictional society which has adopted a
> loglang as their community language (for instance, it has been
> commented that the Vulcans from Star Trek could be expected
> to speak a loglang) - but that's still not a fictional natlang.

Yes, but why is a fictional natlang loglang not a good idea?

Also, the example of Livagian raises the questions of whether a natlang shaped by deliberate planning and prescriptive pressure -- as some natlangs indeed are -- remains a natlang, and whether a language that is actively used, but learnt only through education, such as Latin and Sanskrit are or have been, is a natlang.

> And eutopian ideal societies may appeal to you, but to me they
> don't appeal at all - *all* the eutopian ideal societies I have
> seen so far are totalitarian.  Bah.

I used "eutopia" as an antonym of "dystopia", but I think you realized that. Still, I can't make much sense of your comments; I can't imagine what characteristics of personality, ideology or weltanschauung would make the notion of a better society inimical to you. As for totalitarian eutopias, there may well be some, tho I don't know of any, but ironically the ones I found online (in the days when I had time to look) were very insistently libertarian.
>> Livagian (my conlang) is a clearer example than Liva of a conlang that is a
>> loglang and a fictional natlangoid. I say 'natlangoid', because in Livagia
>> it is the standard language used in writing and for formal purposes, but
>> is learnt through education rather than natively; but it is not known to
>> be a conlang, though at minimum one suspects it of having been
>> artificially regularized. Extrafictionally, it has always been the product
>> of my attempt to create the best possible language -- a language that does
>> best what language is for; but I found, some time in the 90s, that one
>> cannot create a lexicon that is not embedded in some culture or other (--
>> a point that seems tritely obvious, in hindsight!), and hence, like
>> Tolkien, I was moved to create a fictional world for Livagian. Livagia,
>> like Livagian, is kind of eutopian: presupposing that societies can be
>> ranked on a scale of enlightenmant/endarkenment, with, say, Scandinavian
>> countries currently furthest towards the Englighte ned end of the scale in
>> the Real World, Livagia is located a bit further still towards
>> Englightened.
> I haven't yet seen your fabulous language.

"Fabulous" is an excellent choice of word to describe it, what with it being wondrous to contemplate, and oft heard of but never beheld.

>You talk about it all the time,

That's something of an exaggeration, but certainly I am a one-conlang conlanger.

> but have never shown us a grammar of it.

I have written before how as a tormentingly frustrating yet inevitable consequence of the nature of the project, it is forever being demolished and rebuilt, the same canvas painted over and over, the work of one layer obliterated by the next. But I have some hopes of publishing an account of the phonology and the syntax within the next few years. But rebuilding the lexicon might have to wait until retirement, alas.

> All I have ever seen of it are two relay texts - which do not even
> look as if they were from the same language.

Indeed, you are quite right. They come from different interdemolitional periods.

> Nor do I know anything about Livagian society.

Indeed; describing that is quite low down, prioritywise, on the appallingly long list of my projects I have failed to bring to publication.