[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: [lojban] Response ro Robin's "Essay on the future of Lojban"



The issue is not, I think, one of narrow-mindedness.  Most linguists are interested in theoretical frameworks of understanding how languages work, and what they do in the wild.  Conlangs don't really help with this.  Although Lojban and Toki Pona and a few others have interesting linguistic facts, they nonetheless fail to provide insight into what language is and how it works and develops* (since, by definition, they have been designed and not developed naturally).  And, since most conlangs completely lack anything of linguistic interest, it isn't surprising that the few that do tend to be missed.

What's more, most conlangs (again with a few notable exceptions) look very, very much like the native language of their designer(s). Lojban is included in this category, by the way: in terms of word order, general morphological processes, etc., Lojban looks very much like a nicely behaved Indo-European language, albeit one with extensions for the aspects of predicate logic. There isn't much reason to look at conlangs for linguistic evidence or theory (although sociolinguistic aspects and other things could certainly be of interest).

Chris

* This could, of course, change if one of them were adopted widely and began to develop of its own accord.

On Sat, Apr 10, 2010 at 14:45, Michael Everson <michael.everson@gmail.com> wrote:
On 10 Apr 2010, at 22:31, Seth wrote:

> i dont know... all but a few of my classmates and professors all but spit when prescriptivism, conlangs, or orthographies are mentioned. those things aren't "real linguistics" to them. when i have told them about Esperanto having natives, they entirely disregard the phenomenon as "not important". maybe my ling department is just particularly biased, but it is a large department, not just one isolated nazi.

Then they are just bigots with their own narrow agenda.

Seriously, that's just dumb. Neologisms are no different from conlang engineering. Iceland has a whole institute (Íslensk málstöð) for devising new terminology. That's not any different from what Zamenhof or his followers did, or what Gode did for Interlingua. Real linguists study Tolkien's languages both because he was a great linguist (lexicographer as well as conlanger).

Linguistics is a lot bigger than what some universities think it is, apparently. But if your colleagues can't take joy in Quenya or Lojban, that's evidence for their blinkeredness, nothing more.

Michael

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "lojban" group.
To post to this group, send email to lojban@googlegroups.com.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to lojban+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/lojban?hl=en.


--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "lojban" group.
To post to this group, send email to lojban@googlegroups.com.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to lojban+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/lojban?hl=en.