On Tue, 25 Sep 2007 08:08:55 -0700, Leah
<fenton@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:
>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.
There are plenty of topics that could be discussed apart from simple
conlang critiques. As far as "exemplary journalism" is concerned, or
the lack thereof in the mainstream, how mainstream could a conlang
journal be? How much hype and tabloidery would even be tolerated?
>>And one more thing: The conlangs being reviewed must be of real
>>interest to somebody other than its creator.
I think this one will be _very_ difficult to do justice to. Not too
long ago, during a rash of Wikipedia calls for deletion of conlang
related articles, no one could come up with really good reasons either
for keeping the conlang articles or deleting them.
>>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.
All of which is 100% subjective. Who gets to decide what's
"legitimate" or not?
>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."
Or even a broader discussion on ergativity in general (something I
never really understood, so such an article would be welcome).
>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.
In my experience, conlangers in general are interested in each others
creations. If they weren't, forums like these wouldn't exist.
Certainly, not all conlangs will be equally interesting to everyone.
If your conlang is based on Romance or Celtic or Hittite or I-E or
even Tagalog, I will be _very_ interested. If it's Germanic or Slavic
or based on Chinese or completely alien to the point of total
incomprehension, I won't be more than cursorily interested. But that's
just me. I don't think there should be a set of criteria that conlangs
must fit into in order for them to be officially interesting enough to
be discussed in a conlang journal.
>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?
Naturally, those conlangs that have written symbols have them as part
of the language. That should be addressed in any general article
describing the language.
Leads to another question: how much conculture should be addressed?
Languages don't exist in vacuo, leastways not those that are supposed
to be used by some fictional people. General depictions of a
conculture should probably be avoided, but if a language feature is
driven by cultural or biological factors that don't exist among humans
and their cultures, that would have to be addressed in order to
properly understand the language as a whole.
Padraic
>Leah
--
Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com
|
