Once again, yes, there is the trouble with the terms themselves; I go by "conlanger" in this category for four reasons: the bias that "artlangs" usually have more actual, y'know, construction, my own default interpretation from first discovering that others conlang back in the day (I found the conlang-l after the split and extrapolated from their names), the way I've observed others using the word, and an inexplicable, pointless, and extremely strong hatred of the word "artlang."
I won't argue with you on the other topic, though--we ARE saner. I just think it's hilarious that the ones who make up clicking languages for their magical alternate reality color-changing fluffy tree-octopus people or whatever seem to be MORE sensible than the ones who make languages for humans to use based on natlang roots. I honestly didn't expect that from an outsider's point of view.
My somewhat uncharitable explanation is that we KNOW there's no way they'll ever fly. Auxlangers still try, but honestly I do think it's a pipe dream; language runs too deep to be changed from the top down. It's the same problem prescriptive grammarians run into. You can howl all you want about how people SHOULD be talking, but all it's going to do is cause a lot of conversations grinding to a halt while some pedantic twit insists that there's no such thing as being "sort of unique." It's not just an uphill battle--it's a battle to get back out of a black hole's event horizon.
![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png)
timeasmymeasure
no subject
Date: 2010-01-30 01:41 am (UTC)I won't argue with you on the other topic, though--we ARE saner. I just think it's hilarious that the ones who make up clicking languages for their magical alternate reality color-changing fluffy tree-octopus people or whatever seem to be MORE sensible than the ones who make languages for humans to use based on natlang roots. I honestly didn't expect that from an outsider's point of view.
My somewhat uncharitable explanation is that we KNOW there's no way they'll ever fly. Auxlangers still try, but honestly I do think it's a pipe dream; language runs too deep to be changed from the top down. It's the same problem prescriptive grammarians run into. You can howl all you want about how people SHOULD be talking, but all it's going to do is cause a lot of conversations grinding to a halt while some pedantic twit insists that there's no such thing as being "sort of unique." It's not just an uphill battle--it's a battle to get back out of a black hole's event horizon.