Re: Classical languages: was: Re: Gothic language

On Sun, 6 Jan 1980, Tom Wier wrote:

>
> Well, I don't think I've ever heard anybody say that classical languages
> *are* conlangs in the sense we use them here.  I think linguists in general
> are accustomed to a broader understanding of "constructed" (one that
> might include but is not limited to creating languages as a hobby), in which
> anything that doesn't really correspond to the spoken language of any one
> group of language users is artificial, in a sense.  I agree with Danny, that
> their use of "constructed" has more to do with the creation of a standard
> language than it does with our just having fun with words.
>
Well, I'd take issue with any linguist who claims that classical
languages, even Sanskrit, are constructed. They might be in some
measure artificial, but I don't think that the people involved in
their genesis were actively, consciously, constructing a language.

Boudewijn Rempt  | http://denden.conlang.org/~bsarempt