Print

Print


Hallo conlangers!

On Tuesday 07 January 2014 09:08:39 R A Brown wrote:

> On 06/01/2014 21:36, Padraic Brown wrote:
> > G. van der Vegt wrote:
> [snip]
> 
> >> Or for that matter, masklang? After all, a masquerade
> >> refers to an event involving the wearing of masks, and
> >> this is more about the fact the language is wearing a
> >> mask than the surrounding associations of a
> >> masquerade.
> > 
> > Since 100% of these things involve Vulgar Latin,
> 
> Jovian doesn't      ;)
> 
> Also Siva's suggested "Iberian Gothic" which gave rise to
> this thread has _Gothic_ as its base, not VL.

Indeed.

> > perhaps we should just stick with the old tried and true:
> > YARC -- Yet Another Romance Conlang. YARClang.
> 
> YARC involves conlangs that are _not_ bogolangs as well as
> Romance-based bogolangs.  My own British romance project
> will by definition be YARC but I do not intend it to be a
> bogolang.

Sure.  YARC is, well, yet another Romance conlang.  Not all
Romance conlangs are graftlangs!

> > Or alternatively, since each of them involves a Grand
> > Master Plan (as a matter of design principle):
> > GRAMPlang.
> 
> Are you sure they _all_ have a GMP?  I suspect some
> non-bogolangs also have GMPs.

Indeed, *any* diachronic conlang has a GMP, even if its author
does not call it that, for whichever reason (one being that the
term is associated with graftlangs).  "GMP" is just conlangers'
slang for a list of sound changes.

> =======================================================
> 
> On 06/01/2014 22:31, And Rosta wrote:
> [snip]
> 
> > My thinking is that these conlangs are chimeras (in one
> > of the dictionary senses of the term) in that they are
> > imaginary monsters fusing incongruous parts,
> 
> In one sense all conlangs can be said to be imaginary

Especially fictional languages.

>       and,
> when i was over in the land of Auxlang many, many moons ago,
> the fusing of incongruous parts was (possibly still is) a
> criticism of Esperanto.  It can certainly be applied to
> conlangs other than bogolangs.

Yep.
 
> [snip]
> 
> > I'm only really musing aloud on this topic, tho, not
> > trying to argue for a particular understanding of these
> > conlangs. Unlike the artlang/engelang distinction, which
> > I think is fundamental to an understanding of
> > conlanging, _bogo-/graft-/chimera-/masque-_ is just a
> > genre label.
> 
> Agreed!
> 
> One thing that has not so far been pointed out is that all
> the 'traditional' labels such artlang, auxlang, engelang,
> loglang and, indeed, conlang and natlang, all consist of a
> monosyllable + lang.  Indeed, I recall seeing 'tolklang'
> used which is in keeping with this.  'Bogolang' does not do
> this nor, indeed, would chimeralamg      :)
> 
> One reason I liked graftlang is because it fitted this
> pattern.  But, as Padraic has pointed out, graftlang does
> not imply the inherent incongruity of these conlangs.  I'm
> coming around to 'masqlang' - the spelling with _q_ maybe
> points up their incongruity     ;)

I still like "graftlang" best ;)
 
> But, like And, I'm only musing.

Sure.

--
... brought to you by the Weeping Elf
http://www.joerg-rhiemeier.de/Conlang/index.html
"Bêsel asa Éam, a Éam atha cvanthal a cvanth atha Éamal." - SiM 1:1