[YG Conlang Archives] > [engelang group] > messages [Date Index] [Thread Index] >
--- In engelang@y..., "maikxlx" <maikxlx@g...> wrote: > I definitely do not equate loglang and engelang and if I conveyed > that perception, it might have been sloppy writing on my part. > Since And coined the term "engelang" (I think, /'EnjleN/), I'll > invite him to correct the following wherever he is so inclined. > > As per this group's description, an engelang is any conlang whose > design is a rational solution to a set of relatively objective > design goals. In other words, an engelang is a conlang approached > as an engineering problem, and as a term is intended to contrast > with "artlang", where the spirit of personal aesthetics and > creative exploration dominates. If fact, artlang<-->engelang > can be considered to form a scale, at any point along which > a given conlang can be placed. My understanding of an engelang is that it is designed with specific design parameters in mind - In my mind this by no means negates the issue of aesthetics, and good design should not only be functional and efficient, but also aesthetically pleasing. Having been priviledged to see the gradual unfolding of Livagian over the past few years, there is a definite artlang aesthetic involved, and I have to feel that rather than beeing opposite ends of a continuum, artlang and engelang might better be thought of as x and y coordinates, where some languages have a higher value for one parameter than the other, while some are more balance. There is probably a z-axis as well, but I can't think of what it should be off the top of my head. I think that a better continuum might be 'natlang <--> engelang' since the tendency of many natlangs towards irregularity would seem to be counter to the notion of an engelang. On the other hand, even here one could find natlangs that at least seem more engineered than others (Quechua has been described as a rather engelangy natlang). Bfowol