Print

Print


Sun, Jun 12, 2016 at 11:02 AM, And Rosta <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
> conlanging, as I always have.) The question I've been trying to explore is
> what is the direct product of this artistry and engineering, and the answer
> I came up with is "model languages (as opposed to full languages)". That's
> not to say that the artistry and engineering doesn't contribute to some
> larger process that culminates in the creation of a full non-model language
> (at least to the extent that a language that isn't a mother tongue can be a
> full language), but only that the bits, of such a larger process, that
> involve artistry and engineering result in the creation of a model
> language, and processes that don't involve artistry and engineering may
> develop that model into a full language. Is this idea not expressible
> without technical terms?

The fact that many of the people posting in this thread have not
automatically understood "model languages" in the sense you're using
it suggests that it is a technical term you've given a special meaning
to.  And I expect the idea you're describing can be expressed without
technical terms, but it can be expressed a lot more concisely with
them -- e.g., "We can invent model languages but conlangs that develop
into full languages can only be created by unconscious processes on
the basis of model languages.", with "invent", "create", and "model"
being used in the special senses you've given them.  (It seems to me
that David, in his messages, was using "invent" and "create"
interchangeably, and may have missed the fact that you were using them
in special technical senses.)

-- 
Jim Henry
http://www.pobox.com/~jimhenry/
http://www.jimhenrymedicaltrust.org