Re: What defines a conlang?

Chris Peters wrote:
>
> But I don't believe it's exactly that kind of a binary question.
> For the sake of counterargument, I'd point to two languages
> that started out as pure conlangs -- Esperanto and ASL --
> but which I'd argue have crossed that border into becoming
> true natlangs.  After all, both languages are in relatively wide
> use today, by societies of speakers who have no direct
> association with Zamenhof or Gallaudet.
I guess I'd have to define a natlang as one which has native L1
speakers who pass it on as L1 to their offspring, who then pass
it on in turn to their offspring, etc.  I know there are a few native
speakers of Esperanto (some years ago there was a woman
living here in Michigan who was a native speaker), but they
all grew up in homes where the parents learned Esperanto as
an L2. I don't know of any situations where the language is
continually handed down as an L1. So by this definition,
Esperanto is still a conlang. I don't know much about ASL, but
I assume it's in a similar state.


> And the languages have both changed in significant ways
> since they were originally put down on paper by those
> creators.
I've sometimes heard Esperanto speakers make this claim,
but I've read some of Zamenhof's writings, and I can't think of
any "significant" changes. Some minor ones perhaps, but I'd
be interested in what you would consider "significant" changes.


> I'd also suggest that perhaps Klingon is on its way to be-
> coming such a border-crosser. Translation projects have
> been completed and published in Klingon (Klingon Hamlet
> can be found in any major bookstore). The biggest thing
> holding it back from becoming an actual natlang is that its
> creator maintains a copyright on it.
I'd suggest that Klingon is not even close to becoming a
natlang. I know of no L1 speakers of Klingon, let alone those
passing it on to their offspring. Until that happens, I'd
consider it strictly a conlang.


--Ph. D.

Replies