Print

Print


I think of artlangs, auxlangs, and engelangs as the three different types
of conlangs. There is overlap, of course. The main difference is the *intention
*of the creator.
When I think of an artlang, it is a conlang for which the aesthetic
components were the most important to the creator (Quenya or Na'vi). An
auxlang is a conlang that the creator hopes will become useful as an IAL
(Esperanto). Whereas eneglangs (Lojban or Ithkuil) are not primarily about
the aesthetics, or worldwide propagation, but are engineered to achieve
certain goals.
But this distinction is fuzzy. Aesthetics are important for auxlangs, too.
And there is an "engineering" component in the design of the syntax of an
artlang.
Mostly, though, people use the terms conlang/auxlang as you describe.
Jeffrey



On Sun, Jun 8, 2014 at 2:32 PM, Paul Bartlett <[log in to unmask]> wrote:

> On 6/8/2014, Jeffrey Brown wrote:
>
>  That is perhaps a reason to use "engelanging" for the creation of, but
>> "auxlanging" for the promotion of, an IAL.
>> For is not an auxlang a type of engineered language, one whose design
>> goals are the ease of use and learning and world wide adoption?
>>
>
> Yes, but I think that there is a useful distinction between the terms
> "conlanging" and "auxlanging," as well as engelanging."
>
> By definition, an international auxiliary language is a language used
> between / among persons of dissimilar native languages who do not have or
> do not choose to use both / any of their native tongues in common (or, some
> instances, deliberately choose to use the language of one). In this sense,
> English is the most successful international auxiliary language to date in
> world history. It just is not a constructed language. Other examples, of
> more restricted scope (compared to English), have been French, Latin, Koine
> Greek, Persian, Aramaic, Assyrian, Sumerian, and (some) Chinese.
>
> In general, "auxlanging" as the term is used today, according to my
> experience, refers most commonly to the development, promotion, and
> advocacy of constructed auxiliary languages. "Engelanging" is a relatively
> new term which (so far, at least) seems not to have caught on. (To me
> personally, it seems unnecessarily clumsy and unneeded.)
>
> I myself, based on my experience of many years in the area, consider the
> term(s) "engelang[ing]" to be both superfluous and unnecessary. If you
> (figuratively speaking) are interested in constructing a language
> particularly for hobby, linguistic, theoretical, play, literary (in the
> manner of Tolkien), or other similar interest, you are a conlanger. If you
> want to develop or support a particular constructed language as an proposed
> international auxiliary language, you are an auxlanger, and you do not need
> to call yourself as an "engelanger." Obviously you can be both at the same
> time, and you can propose a language both as an auxlang and a conlang. But
> I think the interests are distinguishable.
>
> Also, as has been obvious in this group within the last few days, people
> can discuss natlangs as auxlangs, as this is perfectly legitimate. In
> common usage "auxlang" more commonly refers to a constructed language, but
> it does not have to, but auxlanging is distinguishable from conlanging
> generally.
>
> --
> Paul Bartlett
>