Re: LUNATIC again

[Andrew Smith <hobbit@MAIL.EARTHLIGHT.CO.NZ>]

On Mon, 9 Nov 1998, Nik Taylor wrote:

> But how can a linguist study a conlang?  It's artificial.  No matter how
> realistic it is, how can it be an object of scientific study, at least
> by linguists?  Studying conlangs (except *possibly* those created as
> experiments) doesn't tell you anything about natural languages.
>
I'm trying to think of a reply to this statement in regards to how
linguists might study Brithenig - possibly as a study of applied theory to
an a posteriori Romance language - but I think I have to be tentative in
suggesting that.  Undoubtedly Brithenig is artificial but I would like to
think that it has verisimilitude as far as I can create it.  People have
already begun studies on Tolkien and Okrand.

- andrew.

Andrew Smith, Intheologus                       hobbit@earthlight.co.nz
Life is short, so am I!

-----BEGIN GEEK CODE BLOCK-----
Version: 3.1
GL d+ s-:+ a32 C+ UL P? L E? W++ N+ o-- K- w O M+ V PS++ PE- Y+ PGP- t+*
5+ X- R tv b+++ DI+ D-- G e++ h- !r y-
------END GEEK CODE BLOCK------