Re: What defines a conlang?

On 12/21/05, Ph.D. <phil@...> wrote:
> Chris Peters wrote:
> > 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
> 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. .....
There are a few, I believe, but third-generation native
speakers are a small proportion of the total.

>I don't know much about ASL, but
> I assume it's in a similar state.
Two of my cousins are third-generation bilingual in
ASL and English, having deaf grandparents on their father's
side.  I expect there are a fair number of others in similar
situations.  Since they have children now and their
grandparents are still in good health, I shouldn't
wonder if my baby first cousins once removed
will acquire ASL natively as well.

> > 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.
There's no single major change, probably, but many
minor changes in lexicon and usage that add up to a noticable
difference.

--
Jim Henry
http://www.pobox.com/~jimhenry