Hallo conlangers!

On Saturday 07 June 2014 14:55:08 R A Brown wrote:

> As I have said, in view of the recent emails about
> Bālaybalan and what a_priori and a_posteriori mean, I am
> rewriting parts of my Glossopoeia page.  At the moment I
> list Brithenig and its associated bogolangs under Artlangs.
>   But is this right?

I think, yes; see below.

> I was reminded of what And wrote a little while back:
> On 26/03/2014 18:37, And Rosta wrote:
> > Except that the fascinating thing about Ray's project is
> > 
> >  that it isn't artistic and subjective but rather is a
> > 
> > scrupulously scholarly best estimate of what a British
> > Romance language would have been like (given certain
> > minimal foundational uchronian assumptions). Really it's
> > 
> >  an engelang
> To a large extent this could have said about Brithenig
> during its development.  A "what if" language, i.e. a
> Romance language had survived and developed in Britain, is
> not the same as the creative process that led to the
> development of Quenya or Tteonahth. It is more like engineering.

It is in some ways more like engineering; yes.  But I still
think that the "purpose" of Brithenig and its epigones is an
artistic one.  Like Quenya or Teonaht, these languages are
_fictional_ languages: representations of the languages of
invented ethnic groups.  A different kind of ethnic group than
Tolkien's Eldar or Sally's Teonim, for sure, but still fictional
ethnic groups.  This is, I think, still an artistic purpose,
even if the style and genre (alternative history as opposed to
high fantasy) are different.  This is the difference which
artlangers (mis)use the terms "a priori" and "a posteriori" for
(see the other thread on this) - yet, both are IMHO artlangs.

My own Old Albic lies somewhere in the middle between Brithenig
and Quenya.  It is not derived from a historically attested
language the same way as Brithenig; but it *is* con-historically
related to the Indo-European languages.  It is diachronically
derived from Proto-Hesperic, a fictional sister language of
Indo-European.  Still, I think it is an artlang.
> It was unfortunate IMO that although the orthography of
> Brithenig differs in important respects from Welsh (most
> particularly in having hard and soft _c_ and _g_), the
> Brithenig use of _dd_, -f_ [v], _ff_ and _ll_ gave it a
> superficial Welsh appearance and this gave rise a whole set
> of bogolangs, e.g. Kerno (Vulgar Latin as Cornish),
> Breathanach (VL as Gaelic), Brehonecq (VL as Breton),
> Wenedyk (VL as Slavonic), Þrjótrunn (VL as Icelandic),
> Jovian (Classical Latin as Alemannic German).  I'm not sure
> that, e.g. bolting on the diachronic development of Gaelic
> to Vulgar Latin is art so much as engineering.

Art *can* use the toolkit of the engineer!  Christophe has
already mentioned architecture.  The Renaissance painters used
the mathematical laws of perspective and proportion to construct
their paintings.  Today, there are artists who program computers
to graphically render scenes, or even have robots make drawings
or sculptures.  All these artists use methods which seem more at
home in science and engineering, yet they are *artists*!
> I don't for one minute claim that all of these are engelangs
> - at least in the traditional sense - but are they really
> ARTlangs?

They may be rather poor art, or art that does not fit your taste,
but they are in my opinion clearly artlangs.

... brought to you by the Weeping Elf
"Bêsel asa Éam, a Éam atha cvanthal a cvanth atha Éamal." - SiM 1:1