Print

Print


Hallo conlangers!

On 10.06.2016 18:38, R A Brown wrote:

> If langue were truly Platonic then we could consider J.R.R.
> Tolkien to have been discovering the Form of Quenya (i.e.
> its pre-existent langue), similarly with Sindarin.  In fact
> 'language creators' do sometimes speak of themselves as
> _discovering_ the different forms of the language  ;) 

I am one of those - when working on Old Albic, I often (not always) have 
the feeling of _discovering_ something that already existed beforehand, 
rather than _inventing_ something that did not exist before. I sometimes 
ask myself, "Did you enter morphic resonance with a language that was 
once actually spoken?". One member of this list (I forgot who) commented 
that I may remember a language I spoke in an earlier incarnation.

There are moments when this feeling seemed vindicated. For instance, I 
decided years ago that the basic (common gender singular agentive) form 
of the Old Albic definite article would be _a_ (replacing an earlier _i_ 
that was left over from the Tolkienian beginnings of the project) - and 
several years later, I hit upon a scholarly article about an alternation 
in Western European substratum words involving a prefix or proclitic 
*a-, as in German _Amsel_ vs. Latin _merula_ 'blackbird', which could 
have been a definite article in that language!

But I know that such impressions can be deceptive, and often arise in 
artistic work. It is simply finding out what feels "right" to *oneself* 
and what harmonizes with what one has already decided on. Like, when you 
are composing a piece of music, there are only certain notes that fit in 
a particular place while others would sound out of harmony, and much of 
composing music is about finding the notes that fit.

There have been "discoveries" about Old Albic which were later 
"confirmed" by my research into prehistoric European languages such as 
the definite article mentioned above, but there were also others which I 
later found to be at odds with the results of my palaeolinguistic 
research, and I had either to change them, or to come up with an 
explanation of these discrepancies.

And I am not a Platonist and do not believe in eternal and unchanging 
Forms. As I said in this thread a few days ago, I feel that such 
entities do not account well for a changeful, evolving universe and for 
human creativity (unless one believes that the universe is gradually 
converging towards its own ideal Form, which involves a teleology I feel 
uncomfortable with - how does one then deal with evolutionary 
cul-de-sacs such as trilobites or dinosaurs?). Rather, what makes more 
sense to me is Rupert Sheldrake's "morphic fields", which, unlike 
Platonic Forms, are immanent in our universe and change over time, and 
are more like quantum fields of macroscopic entities. But that, too, is 
speculation, and I do not really *believe* in it.

But frankly, I am aware that Old Albic is entirely *my invention*, and 
any impressions that I am recovering a lost ancient linguistic truth are 
deceptive.

--
... 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