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.
> 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.
> 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).
--And.