andrew wrote:

> > Cool! But I maintain that certain auxlangs have an
> > inarguable artlang quality about them...
> > Solresol cant be denied... who of us would
> > ever come up with such... brilliant I say!
> >
> > Volapuk is neat stuff when it comes to its
> > grammar... have you ever looked it up on the web...
> >
> > Esperanto's hatted letters are just as pretty
> > as any runes, I feel, well maybe NOT, but close :-)
> If it came to a vote I would also support the inclusion of these
> historic conlangs.

I dunno.  As I see it, such a determination cannot be reached
objectively after the fact, if some people allege that certain
auxlangs have artlang characteristics just because of the uses
they're put to or because of certain resemblances which are due
more often than not just to chance.  For example, I just love
/w_0/ as a phoneme, but I think the reason is at least partly because
I associate it with Beowulf and other languages whose culture and
mystique I also value highly.  I think my interest is more because of
this latter fact than because of anything inherent in the language itself.
So, if we are considering any language based on a characteristic like
"artlang" or "auxlang", then we might as well include all of them,
or else decide that such languages are what they are based solely on
what they were intended to be (even if the similarities are granted).

(This is just for the sake of practicality, to get the t-shirt made.  Let's
leave everything else to the peripatetics.)

Tom Wier <[log in to unmask]>
ICQ#: 4315704   AIM: Deuterotom
Website: <>
"Cogito ergo sum, sed credo ergo ero."

Non cuicumque datum est habere nasum.
It is not given to just anyone to have a nose.
        -- Martial