On Thu, 20 Sep 2007 10:34:45 -0400, Bob LeChevalier
<lojbab@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:
>"sjtw69@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
" <sjtw69@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:
>>I'm probably not the most qualified person to answer this, but I seem
>>to be one of the first, so I get to take a shot at it.
>>
>>Conlang is short for constructed language, artlang is short for
>>artificial language. To me, conlang and artlang are the same thing,
>>although I kind of like the term artlang a little more because it has
>>"art" in it, and makes it feel more like an art project than a
>>contruction project.
>
>I believe that "artlang" is specifically used for those languages
>created for an artistic purpose, as contrasted with those intended to
>be auxiliary languages.
Correct.
>>Auxlang, I believe, is short for auxiliary language, and has more of a
>>scientific, or logical, feel to it.
>
>Auxlangs or those intended to be used for communications, and
>specifically for communications between people who speak different
>native languages. The assumptions are that the auxlang is easier to
>learn and use than any particular natural language, and that it is
>unbiased, so that the two speakers approach communication on an equal
>basis.
>
>In medieval times, Latin was an auxlang.
Indeed. An auxlang can be a natural language. Usually, among
conlangers, "auxlang" refers specifically to constructed auxlangs,
like Interlingua and Esperanto, and of course, your own Lojban.
>While Lojban was intended to be "scientific" or "logical", auxlangs
>usually attempt to be "regular" (i.e. to follow simply rules without
>exceptions).
Padraic
>lojbab
--
Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com
|
