Print

Print


Simon Kissane wrote :

> This distinction that you are making implies that (at least to me,
> and probably to others, though I know you will deny this) that
> conlangs are somehow "less than real" languages, only
> half-languages. This seems supported by your views that a conlang
> could never obtain the complexity of a natlang, that it never could
> be as complex (and therefore, as I interpret you saying, never be
> as beautiful) as a natural language.

There are many kinds of languages for each use. We are human because we use. I don't think that secret languages back in remote times were considered less natural than the common language. Taming language was then the hallmark of men's power over nature. Now that language is considered as a *natural* product *echappant a l'homme*, of the same substance as oxygen (;-), the man ought not invent it anymore. Sad. Do you think the *real* world outside your brain makes sense by itself ? Men have created sense by making words (concepts) and have ordered so the world. Why freeze ?
Conlangers don't.
Mathias




-----
See the original message at http://www.egroups.com/list/conlang/?start=18194
--
Free e-mail group hosting at http://www.eGroups.com/