On Sep 23, 5:32 pm, "X. Rayburn" <n...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:
> > It could be said to be a peer review of constructed
> > languages.
>
> Creation of such a journal is one of the goals of the Language Creation
> Society, led by a Berkeley weirdo named Sai Emrys (which is an anagram
> of "airy mess"). Google 'em.
Why, thank you for the compliments. Good to know that one's work is
known and appreciated. :)
(Although I should point out that I am not currently affiliated with
Berkeley other than as an alumnus, nor have I ever lived there. I
currently live in Foster City. But I suppose that doesn't roll off the
tongue as well? And I prefer the somewhat more optimistic anagram,
"emissary"...)
You are indeed right that we aim to create such a journal.
As can be seen from the posts in this discussion (which I haven't
quoted simply due to length), creating a conlang journal is a somewhat
multifaceted thing to attempt. The LCS Board of Directors has been
having an ongoing discussion about this as well, with essentially the
same arguments, but with a bit more attention to trying to bring those
issues to a coherent compromise solution.
Just as with the Language Creation Conference -
http://conlangs.berkeley.edu
- there is a range of interest, from the somewhat arcanely academic,
to more purely artistic descriptions of particular conlangs, to
philosophical and design musings at a meta level. While I can't speak
for us officially on this point - David Durand is the chair of the
publications committee, not I, and we have not yet decided on a
concrete plan - I believe the most viable method will be some
variation on a two-track journal.
On the one side would be a fairly open format - no review as such,
just the usual standards for inclusion in any publication. (E.g.
editing, coherency, length, interest to the audience,
publishability....) This would encompass such things as conlang
reviews (<http://dedalvs.free.fr/smileys/2007.html>
is an example),
opinion pieces, state-of-the-community editorials, 'did you know?'
segments, educational and teaching-through-conlanging bits, conlanging
challenges / puzzles, etc.
(Incidentally regarding reviews, I believe that any conlanging
reviews, to be successful, must first ask the question 'what did the
author of this language intend for it, and how am I to measure their
success at their stated goals?'. Once done, a language can be reviewed
somewhat objectively without as much fear of imposing things about
which the original author does not care. [Though I also believe it'd
be interesting to see e.g. a comparative evaluation of Ithkuil,
Klingon, Quenya, and Toki Pona as auxlangs, or other "what if"
scenarios...])
On the other track would be a more formal, peer-reviewed, peer-
commented, fact-checked side, along the lines of basically any niche
academic journal. The range of topics would be somewhat different,
more formal in style, etc. Peer reviewers would come both from within
and without the conlanging community, depending of course on the
subject of the article.
As for notability, I do not believe that it is the same thing as being
*interesting* - and I care more about the latter. While material about
things that are already notable is indeed frequently interesting
simply because of its salience, this is not an exclusive relation****p.
I for one would strongly sup****t the inclusion of non-"notable"
material in a journal, if it can demonstrate some other sort of "hook"
- e.g. being educational, inspirational, novel, philosophical,
applicable to larger questions or topics, etc. This is essentially the
policy I have followed in the Conference as well.
I have no illusion that publi****ng such a journal, no matter its
quality, will change the academic (or general public's) opinion /
awareness of conlangs and conlanging overnight. That is a goal that
will take years to achieve. But each step does make a difference, and
in the meantime, simply having a good publication that is both
interesting reading and a visible venue for conlangers to express
themselves would in my opinion be a Good Thing. (An incidental
benefit, also, would be satisfying Wikipedia notability standards.)
As for the argument that conlanging is a 'mere' hobby that does not
merit a journal, I find myself wanting to quote Dawkins quoting (so I
am told) an ex-editor of New Scientist magazine: "Science is
interesting. If you don't agree, you can **** off." I would not put it
so harshly perhaps, but the sentiment is shared. If you do not wish to
regard what you do as interesting, fine. We have no desire to control
what you do. But please let those of us who *do* think this is
interesting act on that for the benefit of others who share our
belief. Perhaps one day you'll join us and contribute something of
your own.
FWIW, there is also interest in certain other publications - for
instance, reference grammars of conlangs; introductory linguistics
through conlanging textbooks; collections of essays; etc. These are
somewhat more specialized than a journal, and basically depend only on
the existence of people to write them.
Personally, I think that a mix of academic and artistic material is
necessary for a viable conlanging journal. As is success at bringing
in as many people as possible to join in the effort; the community is
simply too small to waste resources on fragmented projects, and I
believe that one thing that we as the LCS can help with is providing a
somewhat more centralized organization to sup****t these projects.
I would like to see the LCS also serve as a way to bridge some divides
in the community - such as segregation between aux-, art-, log-, and
elf-langers. There are, certainly, some sensitive topics that have in
the past created flamewars on lists that necessitated their splits
(such as AUXLANG from CONLANG). Even those, however, could be dealt
with if written about in a balanced manner. It wouldn't hurt, either,
to have people see things that they don't normally.
In regards to Wikipedia, I suggest joining <http://en.wikipedia.org/
wiki/Wikipedia:WikiProject_Constructed_languages> if you are
interested, addressing the ToDo items in its discussion page, and
monitoring <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/
Wikipedia:WikiProject_Constructed_languages/Edit_wars_and_deletions>.
Yes, there is an ongoing war against deletionism, primarily based on
"notability" and "reliable sources" (e.g. deletionist editors have
claimed that conlangs cannot be "reliably" described by their authors,
but only be third parties such as journalists). There are basically
two ways to address that: revive the <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/
WP:CONLANG> policy proposal in some more lithe and easily passed form,
and/or start having publication in third-party sources such as the
aforementioned journal.
If you want to help change things, I'll give the standard Wikipedia
advice: be bold, and do it.
You can contact David Durand <dgd@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>, myself, or the Language
Creation Society generally at <lcs@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> re publications. If
you have other ideas, we'd like to hear those too.
Thanks,
- Sai Emrys
President (and emissary :), Language Creation Society
conlangs@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
|
