Re: Classical languages: was: Re: Gothic language
| From: | Boudewijn Rempt <bsarempt@...> |
|---|
| Date: | Sunday, September 5, 1999, 7:17 |
|---|
On Sat, 4 Sep 1999, Nik Taylor wrote:
> Boudewijn Rempt wrote:
> > I've objected before to the tendency of classifying all classical
> > languages as 'conlangs' - even though prescriptive grammars abounded,
> > and some even had a measure of authority, not even Panini could arrest
> > the development of Sanskrit.
>
> Well, I'd say that Classical Latin, etc., as well as even Standard
> English, are "condialects", certainly perfectly natural developments
> mixed with artificial introductions.
>
I agree with you to some measure - I don't think introducing artificial
elements counts as constructing, since everyone who plays with language,
and everyone appear to do, introduces a measure of artificiality, but
those artificial elements can become part of the natural evolution of
a language.
Boudewijn Rempt | http://denden.conlang.org/~bsarempt