Print

Print


I'm quite worked up over this for some reason -- even Wm's
short definition quote smacks of elitism in a way abhorrent to me!
Those not in rant-reding mood are advised to delete this mail!
Likewise those who find this too political, albeit conlang political!

Who has the right to set up criteria what your lang and your
relation to it should be like but yourself?! I am -- or at least
have been in the past -- the kind of conlanger who creates many
languages to explore and express different interests, modes and
moods. Some of them are throw-away, although I've been known to
'revive' or at least revisit langs which have been shelved for a
long time. I would say that have I a bond with all of those which
have had any staying power, and they all express my mind.
Hopefully their multiplicity indicates that I am not single-
minded! ;-)

Moreover I'd say that if I have a lifelang it is a posteriori,
since I have had a Romlang of some sort going ever since my late
teens (around 30 years ago), albeit disguised as auxlang for a
long time since my parents did and made me doubt the sanity of
artlanging. (My mother is still convinced of its insanity, but I
stopped to care shortly after I joined this list; I was a grown
man, my father had passed away and the woman I still live with
had become my primary relation.) The thing is that every
incarnation of that many times demolished and rebuilt Romlang has
been an expression of my ideal Romlang, although the ideal has
shifted quite a bit over the years, though less as time went on.

Also how is anyone to judge how I should integrate my conlang(s)
into my life? *Conlanging* is strongly integrated in my everyday
life; it is what I do in preference to all other 'leisure'
activities -- closely followed by programming, and my programming
is mostly language-related in one way or other --, and conlangs
and conlanging are on my mind in some way or other daily, even on
days where I find no time or energy for 'leisure' activities and
those are too many due to my medical condition, which includes
fatigue. I do a lot of reading about natlangs too, but now that I
don't do so professionally any more the conlanger's hat is never
far away. I've even found inspiration for my conlanging in
foreign learners' 'errors' I've encountered in the course of my
professional occupation.

It seems to me from the descriptions given in this thread that
conlexicists are mostly proud over and mostly concerned with acting
out their conculture. I acted out my conculture quite a bit in
and before my early teens -- before the parental ban -- but have
no desire to do so now, especially as my conculture in no way
expresses my ideals of what a society should be like, but rather
the reverse: much of Sohlšan culture is more or less abhorrent to
modern western society since I think it's more interesting as a
fiction that way! In short not all concultures are apt for
enactment!

Not all conlangs excite me aesthetically, but never ever have I
judged the mode in which anybody else practices conlanging
qualitatively or quantitatively -- except that I've found the the
motivation of auxlangers and the unlikeliness of them attaining
their goals make their efforts somewhat tragic --, and even the
most cacophonous engelang phonology has always aroused my
curiosity at least a bit! It's an old -- and true -- adage of
this list that the success or quality of a conlang can only be
judged by its creators stated goals and design criteria. Both
those of my conlang projects which have had the most staying
power have their deep roots in conlanging and conculturing I did
when very young, and they are both in a way failures: Sohlob
because of its sluggish pace of development -- it's perhaps a
bonsai conlang! -- and my Romlang because it has ended up so
close to Old Occitan that it's almost superfluous, except that
the subject matter of Old Occitan literature mostly leaves me
unimpressed! My major conlang literary project would BTW be an
historical grammar of Rhodrese -- my Romlang -- written in
Rhodrese; a truly hopeless project! But I'm not working to finish
anything here: my conlanging is a performance art in my own way
and I have always felt that I'm discovering and uncovering
something from deep inside myself -- so what if I spoke an odd
dialect of Occitan in an earlier life! The archeological metaphor
of my earlier mail was not chosen randomly, mind! My study is
more alike to a book storage room -- in disorder! -- than to a
library, there simply is not wall enough to keep everything on
shelves, so although I live in a rented apartment which my wife
keeps orderly except for this one room, perhaps like And's my
conlangs and my home both reflect something about my personality:
I'm a burrower more than a builder!

Last but not least: what right would I have to foist my interests
-- my conlangs, my conculture -- on my family by speaking to them
in my conlangs? I do share interests with my family members,
including quite nerdy ones (I even share some such interests and
activities with my 16yo, all three beginning in "Star"
incidentally! :-) but none of my loved ones shares my language
interest, let alone my conlang/conculture interest; all the books
on runes and stencils of Egyptian hieroglyph letters I gifted my
kids with were in vain! This I have to accept.

2014-02-07 19:47, And Rosta skrev:
> That's an interesting and useful definition, but the neologizer's
> talents for creating new English lexis are in this instance as
> godawful as those of the folk that made up those nauseating
> pseudoclassical terms for Polyamory (_polyamory, limerance_ etc.).
> That is, I find the definition appetizing but the English
> morphological forms literally sickening and a deeply abusive
> insult to English.
>
> So I'll call this sort of conlang a "lifelang".
>
> The lifelang, the kind of conlang described by Andy Ayres's quote,
> is one of the sorts I find most appealing -- I think of Teonaht as
> one of the prime examples of the lifelang; I suspect Khlijha is
> another example. To create anything remotely approaching a natlang
> in richness is a lifetime's work and requires immersion in it of
> the fullest possible sort. So lifelangs are among the least pale
> of imitations of natlangs.
>
> Of particular interest to me is the criterion "That the language
> is an expression or an extension of the creator's mind and is as
> much part of themselves as their mother language; that the bond
> between the creator and language is such that they could never
> countenance [...] remodelling [...] the language down the line".
> By most of the criteria, my (c. 37-year-old) Livagian would count
> either as a conlang of the described type or as a perennially
> unsuccessful attempt to create one, yet the history of Livagian --
> which is surely very much an expression of the creator's mind --
> is one of maniacal remodelling. And indeed it seems to me that the
> criterion of never countenancing remodelling is inapt. A lifelang
> is like a house one builds for oneself and inhabits all one's
> life; and then in that case much tho I long to inhabit a
> self-built house whose carven bannisters glisten with the patina
> of long years of the caresses of the builder-occupier's hand, my
> house is forever an all-bu
> t-demol
> ished shell mocking the ever-increasing perfection of the
> ever-changing blueprints for it. If Livagian were not to be
> considered a lifelang, then one would be unable to apprehend the
> full scale of its failure, the full scale of the dispiritingness
> of never being able to, much tho one longs to, inhabit the house
> one is forever designing for oneself with the aim of creating what
> aspires to be one's ideal house.
>
> --And.
>
> Puey McCleary, On 07/02/2014 17:20:
>> I don't really have time to chime in right now, but I can
>> provide a couple
>> of definitions of a "conlex" and a "conlexist."
>>
>>  From Inara Tabir, the coiner of the words:
>>
>> "conlex- an a priori language created with the intent to be used
>> on a daily
>> basis and developed to the furthest extent possible.
>> Conlexicist- one who
>> creates a conlex. Conlex(ing) (v) the act of creating a conlex.
>> Conlexa-
>> plural of conlex. conlexicology, the science and art of conlexa."
>>
>> On the Conlex Facebook Group, this is written on the side:
>>
>> "If you have created an "a priori" language and you intend to
>> follow it to
>> the furthest extent to speaking it daily and making it a part of
>> your
>> everyday life, this is the place for you. Basically, this page
>> is for the
>> obsessed, dedicated language creator. "
>>
>> On the main Conlang Facebook Page, Andy Ayres gives this series
>> of criteria:
>>
>> "Some of the things that differentiates conlexa from auxlangs is
>> that (a)
>> they are not necessarily simple or intended for a mass audience
>> like most
>> auxlangs are, (b) they are the reflection of the creator's
>> aesthetics and
>> beliefs, a personal language and an expression of their soul;
>> they are not
>> designed essentially with the needs of secondary learners in
>> mind, or for
>> the sake of facility.
>>
>> Here's a list of things that distinguish a conlex that I posted
>> some while
>> back when the term was once again subject to a backlash:
>>
>> - That the language creator has produced a language that is an
>> intrinsic
>> part of both themselves and their daily life.
>> - That the language can be used to discuss any topic (or that
>> the creator
>> strives to make it so).
>> - That the language is an expression or an extension of the
>> creator's mind
>> and is as much part of themselves as their mother language; that
>> the bond
>> between the creator and language is such that they could never
>> countenance
>> either remodelling or scrapping the language down the line. They
>> consider
>> it their language for life.
>> - That the language creator does not see developing the language
>> as an
>> isolated hobby, but part of many aspects of their life.
>> - That the language does not exist in a vacuum, but is an
>> expression of a
>> culture/s, like natural languages are.
>> - That the language creator strives, and has shown commitment
>> thereto, in
>> making the language as rich, as expressive and as broad as a
>> natural
>> language. This is a process that will be undertaken throughout
>> their
>> lifetime."  (End of quotation by Any Ayres).
>>
>