Re: What defines a conlang?

I believe this is based on how the language is used.  Esperanto, ASL,
and Klingon are all usually used in their standard, base form.  Most
native languages, however, are usually at least spoken in a shorthand
slang form.  Although some conlangs have slang, this is usually more
an intentional artistic creation rather than a natural, progressive
change of the language.

However, again Esperanto may be a natural language by this criterion.
If you look at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Esperantido , you will see
a list of languages derived from Esperanto.  Even I shorten my
Esperanto sometimes--"estam" versus "mi estas".  (Usually, but not
always..."sciiil" is harder to say than "ili sciis", although not much
:)

On 12/21/05, Ph.D. <phil@...> wrote:
> 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.
>