tlhIngan-Hol Archive: Wed Apr 16 13:48:10 2008
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]
Re: cha' Hol ngeb mu'ghommey Daj vItu'pu'!
> The whole term "artificial language" is strange, since all languages
> are artificial in that they are made up by human beings. What we
> really mean by the term is that it is a language created by one adult
> rather than by a large number of children, as "natural" languages are.
> "Constructed" languages fit the same description. The thing that sets
> it apart from natural language is the age and number of people who
> invent and evolve the language.
The Esperanto community is similarly touchy about the phrase "artificial
language", preferring (almost violently) the term "planned language. As
I see it, is is simply a convenient handle to distinguish such languages
from "natural languages", which evolved over hundreds or thousands of
years from a complete community (NOT just children - adults as well
contribute to the evolution of a natural language).
> Meanwhile, I see "imaginary" language as something quite different. I
> think of an imaginary language as a language that does not really
> exist. Perhaps the adult who thought it up lacked the time or skill to
> make up a whole language, but he did bother to name it and maybe come
> up with a few words and a few ideas about grammar to describe the
> language and give those who read about it something to, well,
> "imagine" in terms of what the language would be like, if someone were
> actually able to speak it.
Vulcan, for example, is an imaginary language (unless Paramount has
hired an Okrand to change that). Klingon was also, until Paramount hired
someone to turn it into a real one.
> An imaginary language can be thought about, and its few phrases can be
> memorized and repeated, but it lacks sufficient vocabulary and grammar
> to say much more than the language's inventor has already said. A
> constructed language provides the tools to allow others to express new
> communication that no one has ever expressed before. For example, I'm
> pretty certain that Marc Okrand has never said, {ghItlhwI'mey law'
> ngaS HIvje'wIj SuD.} Meanwhile, aside from the vagaries of Klingon's
> coloring system, the vast majority of Klingon speakers can figure out
> what I just said. I could add more specificity to the color by adding
> {bIQ'a' rur HIvje'vam.} You can't come up with many original Elvish
> statements that don't already exist in Tolkien canon.
>
> I think of the Tolkien languages as imaginary languages. I mean,
> wouldn't it be cool if someone could actually speak the language of
> Tolkien's elves? I don't mean just someone who can pronounce the few
> words Tolkien wrote in the language or who can go through his notes
> and know all the descriptions of the language features and what
> natural languages it is based upon, etc. I mean someone who could say,
> in the language, "I walked five miles to get here. I'm hungry. Could
> you pass me that loaf of bread? And could you pour me some water while
> you are at it?" It would be okay to substitute something for "mile" or
> "loaf of bread", given that it might not be in the vocabulary, but
> certainly any language ought to be able to express something close to
> that kind of thing, unless, of course, the language is imaginary,
> which is another way of saying "incomplete".
Actually, people can and do write original works in Sindarin. Much of
the Sindarin dialog in Lord of the Rings was not, in fact, taken from
the books, but created specifically for the film. (I don't know if
anyone does it in Quenya.) These are not imaginary languages in the same
sense that Vulcan, Romulan, or pre-tlhIngan Hol Klingon. Tolkien created
complete grammars for these languages, although most of the information
is contained in his notes rather than in his published works. Due to
various issues with Tolkien's estate, those notes are being released to
the public at a mere trickle. (People have attempted to fill in the gaps
based on analogies with natural languages and other Tolkien languages,
so much of what today passes for Sindarin may be proved incorrect by
notes as yet unpublished.)
> Klingon is not altogether complete, but among languages created and
> maintained by a single person, it certainly crosses the threshold from
> imaginary to constructed. I'm not sure about "artificial". That's such
> a strange term to describe a language.
Only if "artificial teeth" is a strange term to describe dentures. It's
not the original natural product, but it does the job. Etymologically,
"artificial" means that something was made by skill or craft instead of
occurring naturally.
Those who actually do create and/or learn functioning artificial
languages seem to prefer the term "constructed language" or "conlang".
This is further subdivided into three types: "Engineered languages" or
"eng(e)langs" attempt to prove some kind of a philosophical or logical
point, such as Loglan, Lojban, or Laadan. "Auxiliary languages" or
"auxlangs" attempt to be a neutral internation language, such as
Esperanto, Interlingua, or Novial. "Artistic languages" or "artlangs"
are created for entertainment purposes, like Quenya, Sindarin, or
tlhIngan Hol.
DISCLAIMER: I speak tlhIngan Hol and Esperanto. I do not speak any of
the other languages I mentioned.
(Well, I read and write tlhIngan Hol; I have no experience actually
speaking it. And even my reading and writing have gotten rusty since I
got married and had a child. Real life has taken time away from my hobbies.)