Re: proposed conlang database

http://conlang.alkaline.org

1. I personally would find it interesting to have the database cover a lot
:) I can see how some people wouldn't want to spend much time in entering
the information, though.

2. I already planned to add languages that people didn't add themselves.
That's why i'll have the "claimed/unclaimed" system for those people to
claim which languages are theirs in the future so they can modify them. At
the beginning, it will only people adding their own languages though. One
idea is to have a couple of people that administrate the list and have the
ability to add languages they find, instead of having only one person watch
over the database. I could create user accounts with differing levels of
access.

3. I'd really like to get that database :)

4. I'd really like that classification system to. Sidenote: if it's slightly
more detailed, what about #1 above? :P

-----Original Message-----
From: Constructed Languages List [mailto:CONLANG@LISTSERV.BROWN.EDU]On
Behalf Of Jan van Steenbergen
Sent: Thursday, March 14, 2002 12:29 AM
To: CONLANG@LISTSERV.BROWN.EDU
Subject: Re: proposed conlang database


The idea of creating such a database is praiseworthy.
I'm very much in favour.
If I might make a few suggestions:

1. Don't make it too complicated. A database entry is,
in my opinion not supposed to cover the whole grammar
of a language. Besides,  if it would take one hour to
fill one entry, this might discourage many people from
adding an entry.

2. Let's not limit ourselves to entries about those
who explicitly wish to be in the database. It would
probably stagnate at somewhere between 15 and 50
entries, which would be a pity. My ideal database
would contain every conlang ever created, no matter
when or for what purpose, no matter if alive or dead.
If this would mean 20,000 entries, so be it!

3. There are some very useful resources for this
purpose (Kennaway, Harrison, Rosenfelder, and others).
I created one such database myself, currently with
over 900 entries. The only problem is, that it is in
(don't laugh) dBase III+. It can be converted to MS
Access or something like that.

4. I do not entirely agree with your system for
qualifying a language. As a counterproposal I will
send you a system I created myself, that is slightly
more detailed. Right now I don't have it available
here, but I can send it afterwards.

Yours, Jan

--
Garrett Jones
http://conlang.alkaline.org