There are 7 messages in this issue.
Topics in this digest:
1a. Re: Fiat Lingua, September: Is a Collaborative Conlang Even Possible
From: Jim Henry
1b. Re: Fiat Lingua, September: Is a Collaborative Conlang Even Possible
From: Wm Annis
1c. Re: Fiat Lingua, September: Is a Collaborative Conlang Even Possible
From: Christophe Grandsire-Koevoets
1d. Re: Fiat Lingua, September: Is a Collaborative Conlang Even Possible
From: Leonardo Castro
1e. Re: Fiat Lingua, September: Is a Collaborative Conlang Even Possible
From: And Rosta
1f. Re: Fiat Lingua, September: Is a Collaborative Conlang Even Possible
From: Matthew DeBlock
1g. Re: Fiat Lingua, September: Is a Collaborative Conlang Even Possible
From: Gary Shannon
Messages
________________________________________________________________________
1a. Re: Fiat Lingua, September: Is a Collaborative Conlang Even Possible
Posted by: "Jim Henry" [email protected]
Date: Fri Sep 7, 2012 7:56 am ((PDT))
On Fri, Sep 7, 2012 at 3:06 AM, Gary Shannon <[email protected]> wrote:
> I probably should have stated explicitly that I was considering only
> "naturalistic" conlangs. The process of "growing" a language is
> definitely different than the process of engineering one. Engelangs
...
> a collaborative "constructed" language. Anyway, my perspective is from
> the desire to sort of simulate the real processes by which languages
> come into being by setting up the kind of environment in which a new
> language can emerge as the result of collaboration. Such an emergent
> language will be naturalistic, and no natural language will ever be an
> engelang.
I think you've come up with yet another sense for the word
"naturalistic" than the sense in which it's used in historical
artlanging and in auxlanging. You're applying naturalism to the
process of creating the language, more than to the output of the
process. The way a historical artlanger like Andrew Smith or Jörg
creates a diachronic artlang aims at naturalism of output -- Brithenig
or Old Albic should look like a naturally evolved language, even
though it was deliberately constructed. Your process aims to create a
language by a greatly speeded up version of the processes that created
natlangs. The process would arguably be a lot more "natural" than
the process by which a historical artlanger works, a fortiori more so
than the process an engelanger uses. But I suspect the output of the
process (judging past examples like Kalusa) would look a lot more like
a pidgin or creole than a more typical natlang.
On Fri, Sep 7, 2012 at 5:18 AM, Matthew DeBlock <[email protected]> wrote:
> This industry needs SERIOUS consolidation.
....
> just that the many small participants should be trying to combine their
> efforts.
Conlanging is not an "industry". For the most part, it's a hobby, or
a craft, or an artform (and an artform with little commercial
potential, except as part of a larger work of narrative art). There
are a small number of people like David Peterson who make money from
conlanging, but I don't think it's the primary source of income for
any of them. And even if there were a conlanging industry, as opposed
to a conlanging hobby or craft or artform, it's not obvious that it
would need consolidation. It's probably rare for a TV show or movie
or video game to need such a fully developed conlang in such a hurry
that one good conlanger couldn't do it more effectively than a team
could. Up to a point, if they need better and faster results than
they're currently getting, they could get more of a marginal
improvement by paying one conlanger a iiving wage to work on their
conlang full-time than by hiring multiple conlangers part-time to
work simultaneously on different areas of the language.
--
Jim Henry
http://www.pobox.com/~jimhenry/
Messages in this topic (18)
________________________________________________________________________
1b. Re: Fiat Lingua, September: Is a Collaborative Conlang Even Possible
Posted by: "Wm Annis" [email protected]
Date: Fri Sep 7, 2012 8:02 am ((PDT))
On Fri, Sep 7, 2012 at 9:44 AM, Adam Walker <[email protected]> wrote:
> On Fri, Sep 7, 2012 at 4:18 AM, Matthew DeBlock <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>> This industry needs SERIOUS consolidation.
>>
>>
> It needs NO SUCH THING.
This is my response to the suggestion, too. I can scarcely imagine
something I want less than for me and my hobby to be consolidated.
The greater bewilderment, however, is this when the hell did this
hobby become an industry? I can comfortably count on two hands
the number of people who have been paid to conlang. Even in the
most ideal entertainment zeitgeist, I cannot imagine that number
getting too much bigger. Imagining us as an industry immediately
excludes the overwhelming majority of conlangers.
--
wm
Messages in this topic (18)
________________________________________________________________________
1c. Re: Fiat Lingua, September: Is a Collaborative Conlang Even Possible
Posted by: "Christophe Grandsire-Koevoets" [email protected]
Date: Fri Sep 7, 2012 8:20 am ((PDT))
On 7 September 2012 16:44, Adam Walker <[email protected]> wrote:
> On Fri, Sep 7, 2012 at 4:18 AM, Matthew DeBlock <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> > This industry needs SERIOUS consolidation.
> >
> >
> It needs NO SUCH THING.
>
>
I was about to write an e-mail myself with about the same message, but you
did it better than I'd done it.
I just have a few things more to add:
- Like Adam, I couldn't care less whether my languages are used by anyone
else but me. Hell, *I* don't speak my own conlangs (that's not where my
interest lies: I'm more interested in the artistic pursuit of possible
naturalistic grammars, rather than the tedious vocabulary creation work
necessary to make a language usable), so why should I want others to do so?
However, I can think of other people who would actually *discourage* the
use of their conlangs by others. Think of creators of personal languages.
They may be willing to share description of their language with others, but
that doesn't mean they'd necessarily be happy if someone else decided to
use it for their own purposes.
- Why are you using that dreaded I-word? The moment an art form or a craft
becomes an industry is the moment it starts declining as an art form or a
craft. Look at the film and music industries: for every truly artistic
endeavour or genuine crafty item there are lots and lots of crap released
out there, so much that the true artists can hardly get themselves heard
among the noise of all the industrially created drivel (with a few
exceptions). The gaming industry is more busy alienating its own customers
than proving that game development can be an art. There's a reason why in
all those crafts, it's in the indie scene that really new things are
developed.
So please, let conlanging stay indie through and through. We don't need to
become an industry to be successful (on *our* terms, not ones somebody else
chose for us), no more than painters, sculptors or poets need an industry
to produce their art. The day conlanging becomes an industry is the day I
will stop conlanging.
--
Christophe Grandsire-Koevoets.
http://christophoronomicon.blogspot.com/
http://www.christophoronomicon.nl/
Messages in this topic (18)
________________________________________________________________________
1d. Re: Fiat Lingua, September: Is a Collaborative Conlang Even Possible
Posted by: "Leonardo Castro" [email protected]
Date: Fri Sep 7, 2012 8:52 am ((PDT))
> 2012/9/7 Christophe Grandsire-Koevoets <[email protected]>
> > On Fri, Sep 7, 2012 at 4:18 AM, Matthew DeBlock <[email protected]>
wrote:
> >
> > >This industry needs SERIOUS consolidation.
> > >
> > >
> > It needs NO SUCH THING.
> I was about to write an e-mail myself with about the same message, but
you did it better than I'd done it.
Maybe Mr. DeBlock referred to auxlangs alone.
Conlanging has multiple purposes.
I really can't imagine a successful* auxlang without some kind of Academy.
*: by successful, I mean effectivelly adopted for international
communication
among many official institutions of many countries.
> However, I can think of other people who would actually *discourage* the
> use of their conlangs by others. Think of creators of personal languages.
I haven't heard about "personal language" until now.
It's an interesting concept!
Até mais!
Leonardo
2012/9/7 Christophe Grandsire-Koevoets <[email protected]>
> On 7 September 2012 16:44, Adam Walker <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> > On Fri, Sep 7, 2012 at 4:18 AM, Matthew DeBlock <[email protected]>
> wrote:
> >
> > > This industry needs SERIOUS consolidation.
> > >
> > >
> > It needs NO SUCH THING.
> >
> >
> I was about to write an e-mail myself with about the same message, but you
> did it better than I'd done it.
>
> I just have a few things more to add:
> - Like Adam, I couldn't care less whether my languages are used by anyone
> else but me. Hell, *I* don't speak my own conlangs (that's not where my
> interest lies: I'm more interested in the artistic pursuit of possible
> naturalistic grammars, rather than the tedious vocabulary creation work
> necessary to make a language usable), so why should I want others to do so?
> However, I can think of other people who would actually *discourage* the
> use of their conlangs by others. Think of creators of personal languages.
> They may be willing to share description of their language with others, but
> that doesn't mean they'd necessarily be happy if someone else decided to
> use it for their own purposes.
> - Why are you using that dreaded I-word? The moment an art form or a craft
> becomes an industry is the moment it starts declining as an art form or a
> craft. Look at the film and music industries: for every truly artistic
> endeavour or genuine crafty item there are lots and lots of crap released
> out there, so much that the true artists can hardly get themselves heard
> among the noise of all the industrially created drivel (with a few
> exceptions). The gaming industry is more busy alienating its own customers
> than proving that game development can be an art. There's a reason why in
> all those crafts, it's in the indie scene that really new things are
> developed.
>
> So please, let conlanging stay indie through and through. We don't need to
> become an industry to be successful (on *our* terms, not ones somebody else
> chose for us), no more than painters, sculptors or poets need an industry
> to produce their art. The day conlanging becomes an industry is the day I
> will stop conlanging.
> --
> Christophe Grandsire-Koevoets.
>
> http://christophoronomicon.blogspot.com/
> http://www.christophoronomicon.nl/
>
Messages in this topic (18)
________________________________________________________________________
1e. Re: Fiat Lingua, September: Is a Collaborative Conlang Even Possible
Posted by: "And Rosta" [email protected]
Date: Fri Sep 7, 2012 9:02 am ((PDT))
Matthew DeBlock, On 07/09/2012 04:36:
> I meant "success" as in "survive and prosper as a language"
>
> Right now Dothraki is being tatooed all over peoples bodys, people are
> laerning it, and it is attracting hoards to people the conlang, many of
> which have neaver heard of it before. This is I would classify as a
> "conlang success story". Lojban is a success story as well, and many more,
> the probelm is sucess rate, scale, and survival.
>
> It doesnt mater how "good the language is" application is all that matters
> in the long run.
As you must by now have realized, your views would be reasonably at home in the
auxlang community, but are very very atypical of the rest of the conlang
community.
By your criteria, The Da Vinci Code_ is a highly successful novel, and the
qwerty keyboard is a highly successful design for a keyboard layout. They're
not foolish criteria, but there aren't (m)any of us outside auxlangdom share
them.
I'm among the small minority of conlangers who actually wish for the creation
of linguistic tools -- by which I mean languages, scripts and so on -- that are
better than those currently available to the world, and, should such tools ever
get invented, for it to come to pass that the tools enrich the world through
being used. But even for me, success is measured by the quality of design;
large scale market penetration by stuff of inferior design is offensive.
> There are a plethora of small, single person projects out there, with
> rigid "centralized control" by the creator(s)...... most die with the
> author.
Did Quenya die with the author? If Yes, then why is it a bad thing? If No, and
you mean that for a conlang to die is for it to be forgotten, the existence of
online conlang communities and publication mean that a language that doesn''t
deserve to be forgotten needn't be, as long as the author publishes it properly.
> Personally one of the biggest hurdles is phonology i think. I would
> guess(just off hand) at least half the debates and causes for rejecting
> conlangs by potential users starts here(keywords "by potential users" not
> "by crititcs/experts").
These debates must pertain to auxlangs, about which I care and know little.
> If there were a way erect a 'chinese wall' between langauge and phonology,
> pehaps this would ease things.
Yes, that sort of thing was what I had in mind.
--And.
Messages in this topic (18)
________________________________________________________________________
1f. Re: Fiat Lingua, September: Is a Collaborative Conlang Even Possible
Posted by: "Matthew DeBlock" [email protected]
Date: Fri Sep 7, 2012 9:27 am ((PDT))
wow.. such resistance to the word industry. this "field" needs consolidation.
why is the idea of everyone sitting down, collaborating, and trying to
find a framework that can encompass everyone a problem.
not a "standard for conlangs" just a "standard for describing and
cataloguing a conlang and its features"
As I said, not a "centralized conlang" just a "centralized conlang
repository"
The Frath wiki, I think it is, is already starting down this path. they
have a nice "checklist" style display for each conlang describing present
and absent elements.
Why not go a couple steps further, instead of just a checklist, design a
means of describing the gramatical rules etc..
Some conlangers may find this "restrictive" in their "presentation", but
other than that I dont see any obvious road-blocks.
is it supposedly impossible to design a description system for linguistic
elements to allow this?
Does nobody want to share the individual elements of their conlang modularly?
are the compenet elements of a conlang so "intertwined" they could never
be described individually and extracted as modules?
> On 7 September 2012 16:44, Adam Walker <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>> On Fri, Sep 7, 2012 at 4:18 AM, Matthew DeBlock <[email protected]>
>> wrote:
>>
>> > This industry needs SERIOUS consolidation.
>> >
>> >
>> It needs NO SUCH THING.
>>
>>
> I was about to write an e-mail myself with about the same message, but you
> did it better than I'd done it.
[etc...]
Messages in this topic (18)
________________________________________________________________________
1g. Re: Fiat Lingua, September: Is a Collaborative Conlang Even Possible
Posted by: "Gary Shannon" [email protected]
Date: Fri Sep 7, 2012 9:35 am ((PDT))
On Fri, Sep 7, 2012 at 2:18 AM, Matthew DeBlock <[email protected]> wrote:
> I agree completly.
>
> but again, I dont see anything really geared toward "attracting potential
> conlangers" and getting them under a common framework(the framework shoudl
> allow for everythign of course)
>
> This industry needs SERIOUS consolidation.
That's rather like saying that all the worlds artists need to come
together and paint one HUGE painting in a single uniform style.
Historically, conlanging is something that lone individuals do in the
privacy of their own minds. I don't really think it is best done
collaboratively any more than writing a poem is. In retrospect, I
think what I was trying to say in my article was that once a way is
found to have a successful collaborative conlang then it's no longer
something that we could properly call "conlanging", but has become a
living pidgin.
--gary
Messages in this topic (18)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Yahoo! Groups Links
<*> To visit your group on the web, go to:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/conlang/
<*> Your email settings:
Digest Email | Traditional
<*> To change settings online go to:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/conlang/join
(Yahoo! ID required)
<*> To change settings via email:
[email protected]
[email protected]
<*> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
[email protected]
<*> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to:
http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
------------------------------------------------------------------------
