On Sun, 23 Sep 2007 01:27:54 -0700, James Landau
<savegraduation@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:
>The conlang journal would meet the most rigorous standards of
>scholar****p, and would exhibit accurate application and knowledge of
>linguistics (such things as the phoneme inventory and allophones, SOV
>vs. SVO vs. VSO, or gender systems would be examined by what the
>creator actually displays in use of the language and examples rather
>than copied word-for-word from the conlanger's website). It would also
>constitute exemplary journalism, with reviewers being held to accurate
>fact-checking.
With such rigorous requirements, I think you'd be limiting the langs
that are reviewed. It seems to me that being so anal about details
that the journal would have a very short run before becoming as
defunct as an extinct language. Plus, I don't believe "exemplary
journalism" exists anymore. I've studied it, and while the journalism
class I took did stress getting your facts straight, reading any
newspaper or watching any newscast, you'll see that objectivity is out
the window. Why? Sensations sell subscriptions and air time for
commercials, because it seems that most people prefer tabloid type
press to simple fact re****ting. Sorry it sounds harsh, but I'm trying
to give you honest feedback on your idea.
>And one more thing: The conlangs being reviewed must be of real
>interest to somebody other than its creator. Languages like Verdurian,
>Kelen~, Brithenig and Ithkuil are definitely legitimate topics for
>articles in the journal, but your new ergative personal language with
>33 words you created just last week is not. Basically, review
>languages that are sure to stick around.
I think that's making a judgement call that not everyone agrees with.
I think an article on an "ergative personal language with 33 words you
created last week" could have some study value if it were incor****ated
into an active exercise article, i.e. "Here's how I did it, now you
can try and apply the same rules and see what you come up with."
Granted 33 words sounds more like a jargon or slang, but those kinds
of words do have use. I can "swear" in public and not offend anyone
eavesdropping with a set of words like that.
As for a lang having interest to someone other than the creator, that
can vary with time. When I finished my first conlang, I offered to
teach it to people I know, and they refused, UNTIL I started keeping
my personal journal exclusively in my conlang. THEN, the interest
started. Of course, they want to spy on my most private thoughts.
Therefore, my conlang became my stealth lang. I can write anything I
want and have no fears of it being likely anyone who has access to the
papers can ever translate it. Why? I also created a rather complex
writing system for it, so the regularities of Latin characters don't
give away my words or the single punctuation symbol I use, which is
not a period.
Speaking of writing systems, while the journal you are proposing
sounds interesting, would any lang that is reviewed include details if
the lang has its own writing system? A sample text would be
interesting to see, along with a description, since I began this hobby
by inventing writing systems first. Is it an abjad? Alphabet?
Syllabic? Logographic? A combination of the above? A modified form
of any of the above (like a phonetic alphabet)? Or something the
inventor considers completely unique (I have 3 writing systems I think
qualify as "other")? How did the langer decide on the written form,
and what changes occurred/were necessary as the system went into use?
Leah
|
