When do you say this is a conlang and a conlanger...

[xxx]

when do you think a conlang project
becomes a conlang,
and a conlang lover
becomes a conlanger...

[keenir]

when do you think a conlang project
becomes a conlang,

instantaneously.

and a conlang lover
becomes a conlanger...

when said conlang lover makes a conlang

[xxx]

in other words, for you,
there's no difference between a conlang project and a conlang...
and you're a conlanger as soon as you have the project...
is that it...

[WeepingElf]

I'd say a conlang project becomes a conlang when it is developed enough to write texts in it (at least on general, simple subjects), and a conlang lover becomes a conlanger when he works on his own conlang projects.

[zompist]

when do you think a conlang project
becomes a conlang,
and a conlang lover
becomes a conlanger...

When the first word is written.

It sounds like you want to be a gatekeeper for conlangs. Why? Why bother saying what deserves to be a conlang or not, what do you win?

[xxx]

It sounds like you want to be a gatekeeper for conlangs. Why? Why bother saying what deserves to be a conlang or not, what do you win?

no, I'm just curious about the different perceptions of the main purpose on this forum...
let's see it as a survey of our community...

[Raphael]

no, I'm just curious about the different perceptions of the main purpose on this forum...
let's see it as a survey of our community...

I'm not even sure that conlanging is the main purpose of this forum. There are also the other aspects of conworlding, and linguistics in general, and zompist's own work.

[WeepingElf]

no, I'm just curious about the different perceptions of the main purpose on this forum...
let's see it as a survey of our community...

I'm not even sure that conlanging is the main purpose of this forum. There are also the other aspects of conworlding, and linguistics in general, and zompist's own work.

I would say that conlanging is the main field of interest here, though conworlding and linguistics are very important here, too, as you cannot clearly separate conlanging from either conworlding or linguistics - there are very strong and tight connections.

[masako]

I'm not even sure that conlanging is the main purpose of this forum. There are also the other aspects of conworlding, and linguistics in general, and zompist's own work.

I would say that conlanging is the main field of interest here, though conworlding and linguistics are very important here, too, as you cannot clearly separate conlanging from either conworlding or linguistics - there are very strong and tight connections.

I agree. It may have been zomp's work that spurred this board into existence, but it's the collective interest in conlanging/language/linguistics that has sustained it for more that 22 years.

[Jonlang]

Why are we conlangers and not conlangists? In my mind -ists seem to be more high-brow than -ers; I'd like to be an -ist.

[WeepingElf]

Why are we conlangers and not conlangists? In my mind -ists seem to be more high-brow than -ers; I'd like to be an -ist.

Conlangist sounds odd to me; as you say, -ist sounds rather posh and high-brow (which to me is rather a reason to avoid it), while conlang is an informal slang term (originally just the name of an Internet mailing list running on a server with name length limitations), and I never really liked it, nor all those con- and -lang words that followed it. Yet, constructed language and language constructor are quite a mouthful, and conlang and conlanger are much shorter.

[äreo]

Why are we conlangers and not conlangists? In my mind -ists seem to be more high-brow than -ers; I'd like to be an -ist.

Conlangist sounds odd to me; as you say, -ist sounds rather posh and high-brow (which to me is rather a reason to avoid it), while conlang is an informal slang term (originally just the name of an Internet mailing list running on a server with name length limitations), and I never really liked it, nor all those con- and -lang words that followed it. Yet, constructed language and language constructor are quite a mouthful, and conlang and conlanger are much shorter.

I mostly share your feelings on this. If we were to go in the direction of conlangist, going even further and making it conlinguist would sound a little better IMO

More playfully we could call ourselves grammar-poets. I like Tolkien's relation of our hobby to poetry.

[WeepingElf]

Why are we conlangers and not conlangists? In my mind -ists seem to be more high-brow than -ers; I'd like to be an -ist.

Conlangist sounds odd to me; as you say, -ist sounds rather posh and high-brow (which to me is rather a reason to avoid it), while conlang is an informal slang term (originally just the name of an Internet mailing list running on a server with name length limitations), and I never really liked it, nor all those con- and -lang words that followed it. Yet, constructed language and language constructor are quite a mouthful, and conlang and conlanger are much shorter.

I mostly share your feelings on this. If we were to go in the direction of conlangist, going even further and making it conlinguist would sound a little better IMO

More playfully we could call ourselves grammar-poets. I like Tolkien's relation of our hobby to poetry.

Yes, that's a nice designation, much better than the sesquipedalian glossopoietes wrongly ascribed to Tolkien.

[masako]

CONstructed LANGuage makER

The differences between -ist and -er are subtle, but distinct.

[Jonlang]

CONstructed LANGuage makER

The differences between -ist and -er are subtle, but distinct.

Surely by those definitions it should be -ist? If it were langconing we should get langconer because con- is the verb and so -er the agent while -lang is the noun and so a "related hobby" or "study" makes it -ist (i.e. linguist).

Yes, that's a nice designation, much better than the sesquipedalian glossopoietes wrongly ascribed to Tolkien.

Every source I can find gives Tolkien as the coiner of glossopoeia (and mythopoeia too).

[Ahzoh]

-ist sounds passive (e.g. atheist, communist) to me, while -er sounds active (runner, maker).

Though, linguist is ambiguous whether it's a thing that is or a thing that does. A student or a studier.

Could also just be that conlangist is wrong because "langist" is wrong and the lang- should be ling(u)-

I propose we call ourselves conlangrists or conlinguisters.

[Raphael]

More playfully we could call ourselves grammar-poets. I like Tolkien's relation of our hobby to poetry.

One of the nicest things anyone on this Board ever said to me was to call a conworlding piece I had posted a "neat bit of geopoesy".

[WeepingElf]

Yes, that's a nice designation, much better than the sesquipedalian glossopoietes wrongly ascribed to Tolkien.

Every source I can find gives Tolkien as the coiner of glossopoeia (and mythopoeia too).

There are claims that have spread like bushfire even if they are not true, but maybe Tolkien has indeed coined glossopoeia, though this is AFAIK apocryphal. (But he indeed did coin mythopoeia, if I am not mistaken.) At any rate, when I speak about the Secret Vice in German, I say erfundene Sprache for 'conlang', Sprachen erfinden for 'conlanging' and Sprachenerfinder for 'conlanger'. The equivalent English terms are invented language, to invent languages and language inventor, which I indeed use when speaking about these matters in English to a non-conlanger, which I don't do often.

[xxx]

I sometimes say conlinguistics and conlinguist,
but then I'm talking about experienced conlangers,
and high-flying conlanging...
or a bit pedantic...