Michael Everson wrote:
So, yes, they consider all conlangs as games, as opposed to languages people actually speak, which are "natural" phenomena worthy of study.Oh, do keep your generalizations to yourself. This is really annoying.
It may be annoying, but a lot of us have had precisely that reaction from a lot of academic linguists.
There are exceptions, but unless things have changed, the pages of "Language" and other professional journals are not well studded with articles citing Esperanto, Lojban, or any other conlang, but might have cites from obscure natlangs with fewer speakers than Lojban has. And submitting a paper could indeed get a hostile reaction from peer reviewers (or as the other poster indicated, from the professor teaching your class).
Things MAY be easing up a little, because people like Nick Nicholas with his PhD in Linguistics knows how to talk the professional lingo, and say the right words to sell the language as being linguistically interesting. He has managed a journal article about Lojban, but not in a major journal.
pc is probably more qualified than I am to talk about the difficulty of being an academic supporting artificial language research. The 8 years he spent editing JCB's "journal" were not exactly good for his professional career.
lojbab -- 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.