On 28/07/2011 17:17, And Rosta wrote:
> At the time this thread began I'd been wanting to write some
> further thoughts I'd had on the artlang/engelang
> distinction; it had been sinking lower and lower down my
> stack-based to-do list, but the happy resuscitation of this
> thread restores it to the top of the stack.

This thread has raced ahead before I've had time to catch up
with it!  So I'll confine myself to just a few observations.

1. When Claudio proposed the "Gnoli triangle' IIRC he made
the point that distinctions between artlangs, engelangs &
auxlang are blurry and that conlangs often fall somewhere
within the triangle rather than sit neatly at the vertices.

2. I feel the more we try to add and define criteria for
each of the vertices, the more complicated the thing becomes
and the more we tend to find exceptions.

On 28/07/2011 18:21, Jörg Rhiemeier wrote:
 > Certainly, the boundary is not sharply defined but
 > blurry. It is hard to objectively evaluate a design
 > criterion as "objective" or "subjective".  The design
 > principles of Brithenig are quite clear: apply the sound
 > changes that happened in Welsh since the time of the
 > Roman conquest of Britain to Vulgar Latin.

Not really - that could, in theory, be done by writing a
computer program & feeding in the data.  The result would
not be Brithenig.

According to its author, Andrew, Brithenig is " a thought-
experiment to create a Romance language that might have
evolved if Latin speakers had been a sufficient number to
displace Old Celtic as the spoken language of the people in
Great Britain. The result is a sister language to French,
Spanish and Italian, albeit a test-tube child, which
differs from them by having sound-changes similar to those
that affected the Welsh language, and words that are
borrowed from Old Celtic, and from English throughout its

These are not all objective criteria. Andrew is applying
sound changes "similar to" not the same as those that
happened in Welsh.  One major difference, of course, is
palatalization which Brithenig shares with other Romance
languages but not with Welsh.

When we get things like word borrowing " from English
throughout its `pseudo-history'" we are surely way off
measurable, objective criteria.  How does one measure 

 >That can be
 > considered an "objective" criterion; yet, most of us
 > would consider Brithenig an artlang.

That's because it is. I think it very unlikely, for
example, that a British Romance language would have adopted
the spelling conventions of modern Welsh, e.g. _f_ = /v/. A
Romance language would surely have been influenced by its
Continental sisters. One of the reasons Brithenig appealed
to so many is for similar reasons that Tolkien's Sindarin
appeals to many, i.e. its perceived 'Celticity.'

 > Generally, though,
 > it is not easy to measure linguistic data, as one often
 > depends on the choice of a corpus.

True - and some of the choices made in Brithenig are

On 28/07/2011 23:14, David Peterson wrote:
 > If I may echo and expand upon something Jörg said in
 > response to this comment: What you describe is a
 > naturalistic language, which *can* be a *type* of
 > artlang; it should not be (and, indeed, is not) the
 > definition of the Art approach. If we compared this to
 > painting, this would cover the Hudson River School and
 > the French realists (and portrait painting), but would
 > exclude all other painting (abstract, cubist, surrealist,
 > pop, etc.). That's but a small slice of possible
 > paintings, and, likewise, it's a small slice of possible
 > artistic conlangs. (I think Jesse Bangs describing this
 > approach as the naturalist *school* was quite
 > appropriate.)


[a lot of good stuff snipped]

 > There are artistic possibilities that exist for conlangs
 > that haven't even been conceived of; we've barely
 > scratched the surface.

Yes indeed.

On 29/07/2011 07:28, Christophe Grandsire-Koevoets wrote:
 > On 29 July 2011 02:17, Jim Henry<[log in to unmask]>
 > wrote:
 >> A jokey discussion here a few years ago about DadaÏste
 >> or Surrealist conlangs may suggest another possible
 >> school, with criteria focusing on especially
 >> non-naturalistic conlangs, languages that couldn't or
 >> probably wouldn't evolve naturally, but with
 >> naturalistc or greater than naturalistic levels of
 >> irregularity (unlike engelangs and auxlangs).  Glaugnea
 >> and Maggel might be forerunners of this school.
 > I'd be more than happy to see Maggel considered a
 > Surrealist conlang! :) It does certainly fit the bill.


 > And now I have no choice than to make the first ever full
 > sentence in Maggel to be "ceci n'est pas une pipe" ;) ...
 > at least as soon as I have enough vocabulary and grammar
 > to handle it! :P


I look forward to it!

Nid rhy hen neb i ddysgu.
There's none too old to learn.