Jan:
> --- And Rosta skrzypszy:
>
> > 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
>
> I am aware that there is a fundamental difference between those two. My
point
> was that it is hard to establish which qualification would fit a
particular
> conlang best, because this is something only its creator can tell, and we
are
> not always able to ask him/her. Besides, many conlangs are a bit of both
You are right, but the same could be said of the other sorts of conlang, viz
'fictional'/artlang and engineered. You can't properly classify them without
knowing the author's intentions, though often those intentions are easily
guessed from the nature of the conlang.
> > My feeling is that philosophical langs fall into the class of engineered
> > langs (which would also include logical langs)
>
> Interesting, I hadn't even thought of that possibility. But yes, that
seems
> plausible. Luckily, we can opt for more that one category simultaneously,
> right, so that a language can both be "e" and "x"?
Certainly -- my own conlang is both artlang and engelang.
--And.