Re: What is needed in an conlang classificatory system?

Hey.

A while back (1 1/2 - 2 years), we were playing around with the
Conlanger Code similar to the Geek Code. I know taliesin put it
up on his website, and I thought was kind of fun; I also
remember Boudewijn (and others) proposing a language code as
well. The idea was to provide a quick snapshot of the
typological features of the language in question. I played
around with a version of the Language Code as well; I might
still have the notes somewhere.

I liked the idea because it treated conlangs like "real"
languages by using conventional typological properties found in
languages around the world and applying the same categories to
conlangs. If we wanted to do something like this again, it would
be just a matter of choosing an interesting or significant
subset of typological features and coding them in a sensible
way.

Dirk

On Tue, 30 Jan 2001, taliesin the storyteller wrote:

> In the typologic survey I ask for languages to be classified according
> to Rick Harrison's system simply because I don't know of any better.
> The thing I like the most about it is its conciseness. A screenfull of
> data to classify a language is too much, as you can't get an overview at
> a glance.
>
> I asked for others, and ideas for improvements, got some answers to that
> but decided to move the discussion to its own thread, so:
>
> - what is missing from Harrison's system to make it fit non-auxlangs?
> - if Harrison's isn't useable, what should be used instead?
> - ...
>
> etc. etc. :) The debate is on, messieurs/dames!
>
>
> t.
>
--
Dirk Elzinga                          dirk.elzinga@m.cc.utah.edu

"The strong craving for a simple formula
has been the undoing of linguists."               - Edward Sapir