Talk:Fictional Language

Is "fictional language" a standard term? I have always heard "conlang" when people are talking about actually creating languages. "Fictional language" sounds like it should also include languages that are described or referred to but where the author has never made up any actual examples of the language. Franzeska 16:03, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

For what it's worth, as someone who isn't into the scene (but does read a lot of SF), I'd immediately understand "fictional language" and might look that up; but I'd have no idea what "conlang" means, and wouldn't be likely to click on a link, let alone stick it in a search box. -- Greer Watson 16:06, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

Yeah, I agree that this is clearer, and also I think the wider definition. in my understanding conlangs are really elaborate fictional languages, like Tolkien's, also non-fictional artificial languages like Esperanto, which afaik by now even has some native speakers, so it's not fictional at all, but obviously was constructed. I think for the media fan context in particular fictional language is more useful, because often in tv the languages like Vulcan and such are not all that carefully constructed in the source. We should redirect both Conlang as well as Constructed Language here though, and add them to the synonyms.--RatCreature 16:24, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

Oh, absolutely. "Fictional language" is going to be much more widely understood. What I'm saying is that this page currently gives a definition that's more specific than "languages that are not real" (which is how I would personally interpret the article title). What I want to know is if this is real jargon that's actually used by fans (in which case the definition is fine) or whether this is just the most obvious way of describing the class of languages that is not real (in which case the introduction should be more general and less definition-y). If a sf/f novel had a line like "In the neighboring country, they spoke a funny dialect that he couldn't understand", I'd consider that unnamed, undescribed language a "fictional language" even if that's all the author ever made up about it. Franzeska 21:02, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

I guess what I'm saying here is that the introduction is currently assuming too much about how, why, and when people make up not-real languages.

• "Fictional Languages are languages created to add depth and the appearance of plausibility to fictional worlds." I don't think we can say that they're intended to add plausibility since many fictional languages serve some kind of allegorical function, especially in genres other than sf. I suppose they do mostly add depth, but so does every sort of detail, and many authors appear to create languages for the same reasons that conlangers who aren't writers do: because linguistics nerdery is fun. People also make up languages to illustrate philosophical points and for various other purposes that don't strictly have to do with writing novels or making tv shows or whatever.
• "They are most common in works of science fiction..." Made up languages are also common in fantasy and literary fiction that has fantastical elements in it (magical realism and that sort of thing). Made up languages lots of fans spend lots of time learning seem to be mostly from sci fi or Tolkien, but that's not the same statement at all.
• "While the creation of these languages is the work of the original writer..." This suggests that the article is only talking about made up languages that originate in a particular canon, which, again, is more specific than just talking about made up languages. (It's certainly not unheard of for people to make up languages for fanfic or for sf/f fans to create languages as a hobby.) etc. etc.

The intro makes some good points about a particular variety of fictional language, but it's going for a somewhat specific definition. I'm wondering if this is indeed how people understand "fictional language" as a term. Franzeska 21:31, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

I'm the one that started the article about a subject I know almost nothing about. It was simply meant to be a stubby stub until those who knew more came along and changed it. Feel free to start completely over! :-) --Mrs. Potato Head 22:08, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

Heh. Ok, I'll keep that in mind. Thanks! Franzeska 23:13, 18 August 2010 (UTC)