Why Conlang?

The following is a discussion on the purpose and usefulness of conlanging which took place last week on the facebook conlangs group. I have copied and pasted the original post, followed by comments below. All names have been removed, in the interest of anonymity and privacy for all concerned. If anyone would like to claim credit for their comments below, you are welcome to do so.

 I have included this conversation because it brings up the very questions I want this blog to explore, and there are some interesting responses that may help all of us ask and attempt to answer these questions. Here follows the post and comments:

This evening, while eating with my friends at the campus cafeteria, the topic of conlangs was brought up, yet again, after I spoke a sentence in Esperanto ("Chu vi parolas Esperanton?"). They immediately brought up the perennial issue among us that "Esperanto is not a language," and, furthermore, that conlangs "have no purpose." I have a few questions based on my part of the argument, so that I can be better-equipped for next time this comes around: 1. "Esperanto is not a language," according to them. They say that for a system of words, phonology, and grammar to be considered a language, it needs "significant amounts of use," presumably with a lot of native speakers. I want to know: how do you define language? 2. I brought up the topic of fictional-world conlangs (artlangs such as Quenya/Sindarin, Klingon, Dothraki). Their argument for that was that those have a "specific purpose" and that the people who strongly appreciate those particular franchises use it as "bonding," but nothing more. I want to hear your thoughts on the purpose of artlangs. 3. I also brought up the creation of languages for the sake of recreation (as I'm sure many people actually do). They again brought up the idea of "significant use," as mentioned in question 1. So, why do you conlang? Thanks for reading, and I look forward to your responses! 

 Because I need to create speech that is deeply personal enough to allow me to experiment with literary ideas and concepts I would not be able to express through a natural language without being vague. I need to express myself specifically even if nobody understands what the hell I am saying. 

tl;dr? Obsessive Compulsive Disorder. 

 Great questions! In my opinion, these are precisely the sorts of philosophical questions that conlanging raises. They are difficult questions, but "purpose" as a requirement for a language (or anything else, for that matter), is not a good argument. What is the purpose of art? Some art has a very clear purpose, but much of it doesn't, yet it remains valuable. Actually, I would argue that the purpose of any art form, including conlanging potentially, is to define, explore, and challenge our understanding of the world around us. Conlanging helps define, explore, and challenge our notions of what a language is, and what it is capable of. In creating P-, I wanted to try to do something different, that no natlang I knew of did, hence my noun inflection system, which is not a case system, not a gender system, but focuses on the relationships of nouns to other nouns or to verbs. The form of any given noun differs according to which it is related to. 

 Here are my answers: 1) Firstly, if your criterion for something being a language is "significant use", then Esperanto certainly is one. It has more speakers than many of the world's natural languages, including many native speakers. I do actually think that many of the languages created by the conlanging community (including my own) are "ghosts" in a sense, as they don't have much use outside of perhaps some solitary artistic expression, but that does not make them worthless. Just getting in and fiddling with bits of language can be valuable to the conlanger in learning about real languages and how they work -- or just in having a hobby. 2) As I noted above, the point of an artlang isn't really to develop a speaker community. There are many uses -- I am making artlangs that I hope to use in fiction, others create them entirely for the purpose of writing personal journals and the like. The reason they are called "artlangs" is that they are created for aesthetic reasons. Specific purposes and parameters are up to the creator. 3) I conlang for fun, and in the hope that my conlangs can be used in fictional worlds. I don't particularly care if anyone else learns my languages. They are flavor and set dressing -- very deliberate and thoughtful set dressing, but set dressing all the same -- for fictional worlds. If putting a realistic linguistic system into a fictional world is not valuable, than what about people who obsess over the biology of an alien species, or construct marvelously complex yet consistent magic systems? It's all part of the world. 

 I just had a similar conversation with a friend of mine. She does not understand conlanging (however, she admits that because she loves literature, she has an issue with the idea of making a language). She is of the opinion that constructed language is either useless as a practice, or pointless since one cannot truly capture the nuances of natural languages. I brought up the issue of planned languages as a counter, but she remains unconvinced. Also, isn't there a language somewhere in South Asia that is only spoken by a single family? As far as usage is concerned, that hardly constitutes wide distribution. 

 Also, I agree with G- about artlangs. 

 Expression, I guess. Conveying something in your own words while going beyond the limits that natural languages set on you. That's what it is for me at least. 

 Cetere, kio estas la problemo kun Esperanto? ;) 

 1) First off, Esperanto does have quite a few speakers. Secondly, I define a language as anything that can be used to communicate a satisfactory amount of ideas eligible for real life use of the common man. (High-tech/scientific/economic/etc. terms are not needed IMO to be classified as a language.) 2) The purpose of artlangs lies in the name. They are art. I agree that they do have a specific purpose which is to enhance that which they were created for. (Example: Sindarin enhances the LotR) 3) I conlang for entertainment. I also hope to make a language that could be easily spoken by friends as a way to communicate. Who knows, maybe one day I'll be asked to create an artlang as well! The main reason, however, is for pure unadulterated fun. To say that conlanging has no purpose unless it gets used sounds to me like saying that solving math problems when they don't apply to an actual situation has no purpose. This simply isn't the case. Both these activities exercise our minds and prepare us for practical situations (if not directly, at least through transferable skills). Tolkien didn't invent Sindarin and Quenya overnight with no background in conlanging, it took him years to develop these, and it may have seemed quite futile at the time. Little did he know the impact his conlangs would have.  

 Finally, just a general comment on the 'no purpose' idea. It's relativistic. Purpose needs a referent, nothing has absolute purpose, it's what purpose something holds to an individual that gives it meaning. So when people tell you that conlanging has 'no purpose', don't be insulted, read between the lines, they're really saying that it has no purpose for them. Their loss. :) 

 Wow S-. That was a very smart comment! I agree. 

 Well put S-! I may not be a conlanger, but i bump into the same thing as a conscripter. I would go even further to ask "so speakers alone constitute a language eh?.. well then I suppose dead languages.. like latin, are not considered langauges huh?" The fallacy of the logic of their arguments are easily exposed with reducio absurdum :) 

 All 3 of those arguments don't even need an very sophisticated answer :P Ask them to apply those arguments to English, then to a conlang, and objectively judge what the difference is. I reckon, in 9/10, you'll find a complete conlang will probably score better than English. And I'm pretty sure English is a language. 

 On that note, I've had someone tell me that comparing conlangs to art is just a sign desperation. I don't think I ever got through to him, but I said "yes, it is desperation. Desperation against people who just don't get that some people do some things for enjoyment". 

 But he's right. It's desperation too against ignorance and stupidity. If people just accepted languages as art, without thinking so high of their preconceived ideas about the world (I have no problem with people being high of themselves if they are actually open minded), we wouldn't need the word "artlang" used as much. It'd be damn obvious. 

 But really, to be frank, some people just ain't that trained in the noggin to think about these things at a level worth talking about. Others are, but just are too used to another worldview that it's a pain in the arse to convince them otherwise. 

 1. I hate to begin my response in an uncouth manner, but your friends' collective logical fallacy is infuriating enough to warrant it, I'm afraid. A language is only a language if it is used extensively, by loads of speakers? What a load of bollocks! A language is a complex system of communication that allows one to speak one's mind, voice one's emotions and connect with others. It has nothing to do with size or use. Is not a cat as much an animal as a lion? Is not a bungalow as much a building as a skyscraper? Is not a modest family house, home to three or four, not as much a building as a mansion that houses hundreds? Fluctuating patterns of who, and how many, speak languages does not take away from the fact that they are languages.  When the last native Akkadian speaker died, did a most expressive and beautiful language become a non-language? and did the masses of art and literature produced by its erstwhile speakers become a nonsense? Of course not. Language is not defined by who, or how many, speak it. Esperanto, whilst clunky and ethnocentric, is certainly a language; but so is my own principal language, spoken fluently by a dozen or so folk; and if a person can express themselves and communicate to a reasonable extent in their own conlang, it does not matter whether five hundred others speak it, or if they alone have mastered it - it is a language.  
 2. 'What is the purpose of artlangs?' Since when did art have to have a purpose? The purpose of artlangs is the purpose of art; the purpose of art is art. As an individual, I have produced nothing but artlangs over the years. My purpose was to make something beautiful and mellifluous,  rich and nuanced, and heavily influenced by the language's speaker community. Though I have had minor success when it comes to creative writing, it was never my intention to create a book or a screenplay - the idea of being able to box a universe that has been constructed over 15+ years into a few hundred pages is preposterous to me. I seek no acclaim, no pecuniary benefit, no community (indeed, I kept it as a personal language for many years), and never actively sought other speakers (though there are more than a few). It is sad if art is not enough as a rationale for anything, when I consider it a rationale for almost everything. Ars gratia artis. 
 3. I create and hone conlangs for enjoyment, pure and simple. I have always been intoxicated by languages and find them more beautiful than any concrete object in this world - so it stands to reason that I would be more than tempted to create languages myself. I find it a natural progression of glossophilia - if you love languages, then creating your own is bloody fun. As much as I love all the other languages that I speak, they are like suits bought in a shop - one's conlang is a garment tailored to oneself, where one can pick and mix from the amazing world of languages. I love everything about conlanging, particularly when it comes to my main language, whose import to me I would not be exaggerating were I to say that it was a syrthcelín (language of the soul). I love even the laborious things about conlanging - sitting down for two hours on a gloomy Wednesday night to create names for trees; creating worksheets to explain the intricacies of the language's syntax or subjunctive; (and best of all), creating hundreds of culture-specific idioms. I would give it up just as unwillingly as my other favourite pursuits. It's a lot of fun, an exercise of the imagination, and it hurts no one; so why the kvetching? For those who belittle conlinguistics and conworlding, I pity you - just because you lack the knowledge or creative vision to create a conlang doesn't mean that it is in any way a worthless exercise. 

 A- gave a deep answer. I created T- (and am working out the other languages) entirely for an artistic purpose. While Tolkien created Elvish, and therefore wrote an epic of Middle-Earth, I took the opposite approach: I created the languages of N- so to better write an epic of N-. The languages give the lost continent an added depth which I do not think would have been possible without them. So, for me, creating languages are a form of art, and I create them in order to write an epic, which is another art form. That is my reason. Like with other works of art, the epic of N- should be its own justification, the same as with Tolkien's epic. (Whether it turns out to be as good, you will have to judge.) Now, someone might still ask: "But why create a whole language in order to use it in limited ways? In particular, the majority of readers will probably learn no more of the languages than they absolutely must. Why go to all the trouble?" The shortest answer is that most listeners do not notice all the nuances of the music; but even a casual listener can tell when the drummer missed the beat, or the guitarist played the right note. And readers do not need to know any linguistics, or to speak any N- language, to see that they all have a pattern. So, no: all that work is precisely necessary, for the same reason that Olympic athletes practice for hours, for days on end, for years. All of that is necessary for a good performance. For creating languages, I think the same is true. 

 I conlang because it gives me space to explore. 

 Why do I conlang? Simple: to keep the monsters under my bed at bay. 

 Amazing question,... 1) Each language is a Universe in itself, the same way each Individual might be understood the same way. So, a language is the Way we use to understand the infinite possibilities of thought, emotion, art, science, faith, work, nature, and imagination, etc. There is no need to be a speaker community to have a language, as we can see in nature that all forms of life show language, independent from what we know about them, as human. 2) I agree with the "bonding" aspect of a language. But well, I don't conlang only for the Art of it, but also to be able to understand this "bonding" aspect, and I think conlangs have more to show then Art alone. They convey the needs and wishes of the speaker(s), actually whatever they be, and they're useful in a huge number of ways. 3) I conlang for Freedom. Once I've defined myself as a Free Thinker, I want to get myself free from the "jailing" aspect of the one-way-thinking given by (my) native language(s), or even by the English as (my) second language, or any other natlang, this way I invent languages to think out of the box.

A Virestian Folk Song

At the following link, you can find a Virestian folk song that I wrote some time ago, though I'm only now getting around to posting it on youtube and here. The lyrics, in English and in Paiodd, are at the youtube page. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=A-CMISeUaBg