[YG Conlang Archives] > [romconlang group] > messages [Date Index] [Thread Index] >
--- On Mon, 1/18/10, Benct Philip Jonsson <bpj@hidden.email> wrote: >>> That would be the difference between realistic and >>> naturalistic as I use the terms. > >> OK. For me, the two terms are synonymous in a situation like this. >It is useful to make a distinction between >1) What actually occurs in natlangs/a specific natlang/a specific >group of natlangs. >2) What looks like it could occur in natlangs/the specific >natlang(s) under consideration but actually doesn't. Sure. To my way of thinking, this is a different dichotomy entirely. Now we're comparing real languages with constructed ones, rather than just descrbing conlangs. I would distinguish these two concepts by saying feature 1 is a "real" feature of languages (it actually does occur in languages), while feature 2 is "realistic" (it could occur or models what occurs). Typical definitions for "realistic" involve things like "based on what is real or practical", "representation in literature or art of things as they really are" and "resembling or simulating real life". On the other hand, "real" involves things like "true", "existing or occurring as fact", and "genuine; not counterfeit, artificial, or imitation". So, we're making the same distinction, but applying different words to it. >and I'm wont to call (1) 'realistic' and (2) 'naturalistic' . Fair enough! So long as we understand each others' definitions (and keep reminding each other when we forget!) or rather the different words we use for the same concepts. >Clearly there are things which fall under (1) if considering the >set of all natlangs (or some group of natlangs) but under Yes. I would call those "real features". >(2) when considering only a particular group, or some other group, Even if considering only a particular group (of natural languages), the features are still actual features of language. >so that one needs a more fine-grained scale when comparing a >conlang to a particular group of natlangs rather than the set >of all natlangs. how about (taking Romance languages as an example): >1) Things which do occur in Romance natlangs, or a particular >branch of them. These are clearly *real*. Agreed, and I'd call those features "real". >2) Things which do not occur in Romance natlangs or a particular >branch of them, but look pretty much as if they could. These >are *realistic*. Or "naturalistic". The feature resembles real features of natural langauges. >3) Things which occur in natlangs, but not in any Romance natlangs >or a particular branch of them. These are *natural*. Those would still be "real" features, simply applied to languages that don't normally express them. For example, conjugated preverbs in Kerno. It's a real feature of some forms of Celtic, and I found it aesthetic, so inserted it into a language family (Romance) that doesn't express that feature. >4) Things which don't occur in natlangs but look as they could. >These are *naturalistic* . Or "realistic" -- such a feature emulates or simulates what happens in real languages. >5)...8) The negations of these, e.g.: >8) Things which don't occur in natlangs and which don't look >as they could. These are unnaturalistic. I'd call that an "unrealistic" feature. It seems to me we're just using slightly different words to describe the same realities. [snip] >A further parameter within 'realism' in relation to 'reality') and >naturalism in relation to naturalness is *plausibility* , A whole nother kettle of fish. I rather doubt that conjugated preverbs are plausible in a Romance language -- nor do I find many things we do when constructing languages plausible! Even when they're entirely realistic. But again, unless we're trying to reconstruct a lost natural language or trying to construct an historically accurate one or trying to update a dormant one (Hebrew, Cornish), plausibility is a take it or leave it optional extra. >or if you will degrees of realism/naturalism defined as >closeness/distance to the real or the natural. Indeed. I would say that Brithenig is perhaps several degrees closer in realism (simulating real features) to real Romance (and to use my definitions), while Kerno is perhaps a few degrees further away becase while it to simulates real features of language, its simulation steps further afield from what is "Romance" as opposed to "Celtic". >Granted this >may be a high degree of specialization of the terms, but that >is what diciplinary jargon usually boils down to: Nothing wrong with specialisation of terms. Though I don't see conlangery as a proper "discipline", like historical linguistics, with canonical jargon. There's more room for different and at times ideosyncratic systems of description. And even if someone did codify conlanging as an actual scholarly discipline, I'd then tend towards contrarianism simply because it's my art and I'll use whatever terms are meaningful to me to describe it, academia notwithstanding. ;) >those >engaged in a field have use for finer distinctions of meaning >than those available previously or outside the field, and so they >specialize and differentiate terms that previously or elsewhere >were/are synonyms. Well, I've been "in the field" for a rather long time. We might disagree slightly on this issue, and we don't yet have a conlang police to enforce uniformity of terminology! ;) But I think that's mostly cos we're using different words to describe the same thing, and the same words to describe other things. In other words, I find useful the same distinctions you are making, but find the words you happen to be using for them synonymous, prefering in stead a different set of words. > Once you've established that our *thing* >(res) is Romance languages (nat or con) as opposed to non-Romance >languages (nat or con) then this specialization of *real/-istic* >vs. *natural/-istic* makes a lot of sense. I agree fully with the distinction, and as should be clear above, make the same distinction. I use different terms to do it. > NB that this *thing* >straddles the fact vs. fiction divide too, so "fact/-ual/- istic" >would not work as well. Germanic-style i-umlaut is not real >WRT Romance languages (since it doesn't occur in Romnatlangs) >but it is a fact WRT the Romconlang Rhodrese, because I've made >(factum habeo) it so. Sure -- a real feature applied to a language family that doesn't express the feature. Rhodrese would be realistic because it emulates real features of real languages. Like Kerno, it's simply emulating features from disparate families. >>> My son can't even stand >>> the sight of the fried tomatoes! > >> Ha! Perhaps he should try em with catsup and mustard! >He wouldn't touch either of those either. He wants >his hotdogs 'natural', which to him means only with >bread and no garnish of any kind. That 'natural' >includes bread is part of his culinary jargon! ;-) Hm, well you know what they say about de gustibuses. The only hot dog I'd eat au naturel that way is Nathans (cos it's a bit spicey). Otherwise, mustard and catsup are required to make the things taste like something other than bun. >/BP 8^)> Padraic