Re: The Language Code, take 2 (or 3)

On Wednesday, June 11, 2003, at 11:43  AM, And Rosta wrote:

> Jan:
>>> T       type
>>>         f       fictional
>>>         l       logical
>>>         x       auxiliary
>>>         p       personal
>>>         n       natural
>>>         o       other
>>
>> Hm. What is the difference between "fictional" and "personal"? I have
>> some
>> experience in categorising conlangs, and my impression is that this
> distinction
>> is incredibly tough to make. Personally, I would merge them under the
> header:
>>           a       artlang
>
> A personal conlang is one not created as an aesthetic object but
> rather as a
> code for private use. In that sense it is like an auxiliary language,
> but
> for personal/private rather than international use.
This is also my understanding.

>> However, another distinction should IMO be made within this category:
> between a
>> priori and a posteriori (a scale would be useful here, something like
> a+++)
>
> Good suggestion, except it applies to all non-natlangs.
It applies to all non-natlangs, but it's only really relevant for
auxlangs, no? In any case, I think it's a parameter worth including.

>> As an additional category I would add "philosophical language".
>> Although
> most
>> philangs I am aware of were intended as auxlangs, they are different
> enough
>> from Esperanto, Interlingua and the like for a separate category
>
> My feeling is that philosophical langs fall into the class of
> engineered
> langs
> (which would also include logical langs).
Okay, so that answers another question I had. You consider logical
languages to be a subtype of engineered languages then. If this is a
widespread feeling, then it lends more support to changing the label
from "l" to "e".

So here's my revision for Type:

T       type
        x       auxiliary
                a       -/+     a priori/a posteriori
        f       fictional
        e       engineered
        p       personal
        n       natural
        o       other

Dirk
--
Dirk Elzinga
Dirk_Elzinga@byu.edu

"I believe that phonology is superior to music. It is more variable and
its pecuniary possibilities are far greater." - Erik Satie

Replies