Above the fold

setavulos:

monkeytypist:

It’s good to see that Language log is addressing the anti-constructed language sentiment that is out there; in particular the reflex idea espoused (especially by qualified linguists who should know better) that creating fake languages while real ones exist that are poorly documented is somehow a sinful waste of resources. This strikes me as silly for a number of reasons.

Firstly, as the languagelog post says, constructed languages are a great way to teach people in our appallingly monolingual Anglosphere about the nuts and bolts of language; the first linguistics I learned was in Lord of the Rings’ voluminous appendices. Without the distraction of struggling with vocabulary-building at the same time you’re acquainting yourself with grammar, it is a good way to focus students on the higher-level structure of a language instead of crafting specific basic utterances. You’ve got no reason to learn about conlangs but your own enthusiasm for whatever fictional world you’re dealing with; this takes a lot of the pressure off, in my view.

Secondly, it’s not as though there’s a huge glut of people who would be out in the field with tape recorders if it weren’t for the existence of Na’vi or Klingon. Conlanging, in my view, goes quite well with academic interest in linguistics, even though I’m aware of very few professional linguists who practice it. Constructing fictional examples is an ideal way to test grammatical or phonological principles for yourself, and it’s not surprising that many conlangers study linguistics formally (like I did). In fact in our morphology class our lecturer (who isn’t a conlanger) gave us a small constructed language corpus to decipher as an exercise. There’s no evidence at all to say that ‘proper’ linguistics and conlanging are mutually exclusive; if anything they complement each other nicely.

In any case, fieldwork demands a very specific skill set and commitment which by no means all linguists have. Linguists who don’t do field work still find plenty to occupy themselves with, and nobody berates them for ‘wasting time’.

Thirdly, the fact that field linguistics is under-resourced is a sociopolitical fact, not something that can be solved by rounding up a small group of conlangers. The documentation of moribund languages is vitally important work, true. But it’s vital on a more abstract, indirect, knowledge-of-how-human-language-works-in-general level. The experience of history is that even well-documented languages can succumb to pressure, and just being able to document a language isn’t on its own enough to preserve a culture (you don’t ‘preserve’ a culture by sticking it in a jar).

OK so I’ll admit that on some level creating languages is an unprofitable waste of time, but only insofar as anything else, like creating a personal tumblog, is.

(‘the secret vice’ was what Tolkien called language creation, which gives you an insight into the cheerily dull nature of his personal life).

Although I generally agree with what you said, I would have to disagree that conlanging is a waste of time on the same level that going on tumblr is. When you conlang, really conlang in the way that the hobbyists do, you have to know much more than you already do. It’s a continuous process of learning more things about language and trying things out or incorporating new ideas and features into your own personal language. I know 100x more about language and linguistics than I would if I had never made Anikele.

So for me, conlanging isn’t really just about “wasting time” from things like schoolwork or that. It’s about learning more about language and playing with it. If you had the chance to either listen to someone talk about making sculpture or actually get to get your hands dirty and form something yourself, which do you think would be more beneficial? 

Also, you should have linked the actual Language Log post you mentioned.

Good point and thanks. :)