Why don't people fuck around with constructed languages more?

Why don't people fuck around with constructed languages more?

I'm not here to promote any specific conlang, but I'm interested in peoples' reasoning against using conlangs. Generally when someone suggests using one, the reactions revolve around a lack of culture/history/literature making the conlang useless. Why is this such a big concern? What's wrong with creating an easy to use "product" such as an easily learned conlang (like Esperanto), or testing out new methods of communicating (such as attempted with Lojban), basically creating sandbox languages to test out grammar/orthography/etc. in attempts to make communication efficient? Why is it that only autists seem to be into this kind of thing and that using a language that lacks a long history seems at best, dorky, and at worst, some kind of violation against human culture?

Basically, why cling to natlangs so tightly? Is there any good reason aside from nuts and bold transitional stuff such as having to translate a bunch of old texts (which plenty of people do for free), convert school curriculums etc., were a conlang to start being adopted as official (not really what I am talking about at all)? Or do people only think conlangs are ugly and natlangs are beautiful simply because muh old shit? Why insist on using only old languages and hold new languages as inherently inferior?

Also, I imagine around the dawn of language there must have been a few autists who sought to improve it and probably invented some words and methods for communication, and managed to get other people to join in. Why not? People have been doing that continuously with writing systems since writing was developed; seems sensible that pre-writing people could have been playing around with morphemes and advanced grammar structures in either spoken language or sign language before that.

Well for one, conlangs are greatly influenced by fantasy languages from all sorts of fantasy stories.

They bring wierd people in and regular folks don't really care about it.

But what you are asking is like asking why aren't more people interested in book clubs, even though it might help them.
It's just not interesting to most people.

Also learning a new conlang is pretty hard, even though auxlangs are designed to be easy.
I would rather just learn a natlang.

Also, I already know how to speak toki pona, so my conlang learning fays are over desu.

>pre-writing people could have been playing around with morphemes and advanced grammar structures

As a linguist I can tell you I think it's probably true that people were 'playing around with morphemes and advances grammar structures' since language first developed, lol.

What the fuck do you think a natlang is?

Do you think there's a hard and fast distinction between constructed and natural languages, beyond the fact that almost nobody uses constructed languages because they're contrived?

Actually study linguistics before you go around proposing linguistic policy whilly nilly.

Because constructed languages (the non-fictional ones anyway, so I'm excluding shit like Elvish) usually come with political and ideological baggage that nobody really identifies with. Also there is no depth or diversity of culture and expression. No real acquired metaphors and poetic images. And the evangelists for languages such as Esperanto are so goddamn annoying and awful that nobody would want to talk to them anyway. If I learn Chinese, I can speak to a wide variety of people with different ideologies, beliefs, personalities, and modes of expression. I learn Esperanto, and I'm basically talking to the equivalent of Linux evangelists. No fucking thanks.

Also, languages like English and French have succeded far more than conlangs at what the conlangs are supposed to do.

mi wile unpa e mama sina

I'm not proposing anything, I'm just asking why people react this way. Personally I see no distinction between conlangs and natlangs (especially when getting to things like sign languages and modern Hebrew), so to me the reaction against conlangs seems knee-jerk. Thanks for acting really superior about being a linguist though it added alot of flavor to your post.

>What the fuck do you think a natlang is?

Oh and just to answer this in more detail, based off of your post it seems likely that you and I agree about what a natlang is and the lack of distinction between conlangs/natlangs, and the likelihood of people just inventing linguistic things in prehistory (and throughout recorded history as well to be quite honest)

I've just encountered so many people that get pissy when I say this that I've softened the way I say it considerably.

>especially when getting to things like sign languages and modern Hebrew
well sign language has was made for specific practical reasons (the deaf) and with modern Hebrew it goes back again to the issue of idealogy. modern Hebrew was pushed by early Zionists so it had an idealogy attached to it that appealed to more Jews than Esperanto

Good points. I guess I'm just too autist myself to readily accept that most people aren't interested in experimenting with communication techniques simply for its own sake. Since natlangs are achieving adequate communication for the majority of people, I guess the "if it ain't broke don't fix it" rule applies. Still, experimentation is fun.

Maybe you just don't understand what language is and what it's for.

That seems pretty unlikely.

Read pic related. And study some Alfred Korzybski.

Essentially, human beings are flawed and our communications reflect that. We won't be able to communicate with 100% accuracy.

>He sought to train our awareness of abstracting, using techniques he had derived from his study of mathematics and science. He called this awareness, this goal of his system, "consciousness of abstracting". His system included the promotion of attitudes such as "I don't know; let's see," in order that we may better discover or reflect on its realities as revealed by modern science. Another technique involved becoming inwardly and outwardly quiet, an experience he termed, "silence on the objective levels".

Despite whatever complex explanation we can come up with, I think at the end of the day, it's simply about being autistic enough.

First, for most people, language is a tool they completly take for granted and go through life without really studying or understanding. This is especially true for americans who only speak english. Some get all surprised and frustrated if they ever find out other languages aren't simply 1:1 replicas of english with every word swapped by another sound. That's one thing. So if you speak of conlangs to these people, they won't see the point.

Then, you got the people who are linguistically aware enough to understand how languages differ and how they can give you another conceptual perception of things. These people will understand what conlangs are, and might think it's fun, but at the end of the day they don't have time for that.

And then you got the autist who, one day, actually start their conlangs. Most of them enjoy it for a week or two, and then abandon the project. They either had their fun, or they realize what a massive task this will turn out to be.

And then, in the 0.0001%, you got the uber nerds who actually make a language for months, and insert exceptions and organic irregularities and all that. Then, they start talking about it to others, and they realize most people don't care 5 minutes in the discussion, or just smile and nod. 99% of conlangs never spread beyond their creator's mind.

Interesting, I'll check this out.

>Essentially, human beings are flawed and our communications reflect that. We won't be able to communicate with 100% accuracy.

Seems reasonable to me, and I'm not trying to suggest that we should seek 100% accuracy in OP post (not really suggesting anything except that conlangs get reacted to as if they are inferior to natlangs, when I feel they're pretty much the same).

Anyway my personal take on this would be something along the lines of, we can't be immortal (probably) but we still develop medical techniques for prolonging life. We can't reach the end of the universe (I guess? I'm not a physicist, idfk, but I think you get the point I'm making), but we continue to explore it further. Does it really matter why, or if it's productive? I don't really think so.

Again I'm not trying to suggest any specific actions to be taken, I'm just interested in other peoples' points of view on this.

>and insert exceptions and organic irregularities and all that

>Seems reasonable to me, and I'm not trying to suggest that we should seek 100% accuracy in OP post

Oh I know, the book argues 100% accuracy is needed and there are scientists and mathematicians working to this goal (I don't know about still, but they were). It tries to say that some of the worlds conflicts and other events happened simply because we truly do not understand one another and manipulation occurs almost always by people who can use the language better.

It's really all about awareness and is a great read. It starts off by saying that everyone wants to be a writer, but not one actually looks at the tools of the writer, to see if they can be improved. It's quite an old book.

Thanks for the description, that seems super interesting. I'm reading up on Alfred Korzybski right now too.

>but not one actually looks at the tools of the writer, to see if they can be improved.

Pretty much what I have been wondering to myself daily when it comes to this stuff.

It's a certainty.

That's the beauty of it, user

Artlangers RAUS

>Why don't people do [autistic shit].

Because it's fucking autistic you dumbass.

>Because it's fucking autistic you dumbass.
It's the autists who push the world forward.

You don't find autists in leadership positions. Don't delude yourself.

Not really. In fact, most autistic pursuits that aren't computer related are usually things people don't need, especially in this day and age.

>You don't find autists in leadership positions. Don't delude yourself.
>leaders are inventors
kay'.

>In fact, most autistic pursuits that aren't computer related are usually things people don't need, especially in this day and age.
This has literally no relevance.

Literally everything you have today is based off of autists like the creators of the computer or Tesla.

There's a tribe in Ghana with a stupidly high rate of genetic deafness

They created their own sign language to compensate

>Successful inventors, engineers, and physicists are autistic
>The measure of progress is only scientific and not social
Good one.

OP btfo

conlanging is an elder-god tier hobby. The ultimate literature.

>he is now using the literal idea of autistic
>not the Veeky Forums meme
Just stop. People now think that Einstein literally had Asperger's to some degree.

>The measure of progress is only scientific and not social
Literally fucking wrong. Technological advancement directly influences social standards. Are you actually fucking serious right now?
>computers have done nothing to improve the western world
>even on a social level
>he said as he socially posted online
>using 0 technology
>whatsoever

Holy shit, actually fucking hilarious.

>Projecting your own social failings to your inventor-heroes
>Completely misreading text
What a true autist. Successful inventors have social skills.

>Implying I said social advances are the only measure of progress
Holy shit you really are autistic. Kill yourself.

Kek, nice reply.

Saved.

OP here and I've really enjoyed the responses ITT so far

>make no arguments
>people act as though you did

What did they mean by this?

You made a thread asking a fucking retarded question and threw a tantrum when everyone else pointed out how dumb you are.

My last post was this Well, also this but I was just joking there

Tantrum where?

Don't pretend wasn't you

Also, asking retarded questions on Veeky Forums is my hobby. Been having a pleasant time ITT, Veeky Forums gives nice long responses

In defence of OP who made a good thread.

It wasn't. A comment like that detracts too much from the topic of conlanging, I don't really give a damn if autists think they are the movers and shakers of the world or not. And although I guess I haven't said so explicitly ITT, I don't really think conlanging is a noble pursuit or anything. My main issue was with people acting as though conlangs and natlangs are significantly different. I don't really think they are, but I don't mind being proven wrong or anything, I just wanted to initiate a discussion about it so I could have a comfy thread about language stuff to read. /int/ would never be so tl;dr and anywhere but Veeky Forums I couldn't ask something so 'retarded'

ty user

>why not use conlangs?
Because natlangs already exist and most of them are already very extensive and effective for communication. Conlangs are just unneccessary. Further, why would you bother learning an obscure and not understood language like many conlangs are? If I go learn something like German, there are already many people who already speak and understand it. Whereas if I decided to learn something like Lojban it would be pointless because no one actually speaks that, it would be a waste of time. It's just silly to go and fix something that isn't broken. English, for example, is very effective as it is. There's no point in completely scrapping it to replace it with a conlang.

Kiu parolas esperanton cxi tie?

If you'd actually studied linguistics you'd know why your question is retarded, and you wouldn't need to post such a worthless thread.

Mi. Sal'. Kio okazas, aĉulo? Ĉu vi jam afiŝas ĉe verda-chan?

Your actually a fucking idiot.

This is a very valid question, which people to this day are still trying to answer.

You simply could not answer his question. You would know this field of study, had YOU studied any linguistics.

I am not OP by the way, just someone extremely interested in the field of semantics and meaning in general.

The most important part of that image is this -
> In general semantics, it is always possible to give a description of empirical facts, but such descriptions remain just that—descriptions—which necessarily leave out many aspects of the objective, microscopic, and submicroscopic events they describe. According to general semantics, language, natural or otherwise (including the language called 'mathematics') can be used to describe the taste of an orange, but one cannot give the taste of the orange using language alone. According to general semantics, the content of all knowledge is structure, so that language (in general) and science and mathematics (in particular) can provide people with a structural 'map' of empirical facts, but there can be no 'identity', only structural similarity, between the language (map) and the empirical facts as lived through and observed by people as humans-in-environments (including doctrinal and linguistic environments).

It's literally the most important part of communication in it's purest form. It's attempting to describe colour to blind people, essentially.