Re: conlang classification and productivity

Dan (Jones):
> I've been thinking about all the systems of classification proposed for
> conlangs, but not one of them takes into account that a conlang is generally
> a work in progress.
The one I posted about a week ago did.

> I propose a system whereby you can tell how *developed*
> a conlang is, i.e. how much work has been done on it. This is done by
> assigning a "score" to each of four categories, which were chosen as being
> the "integral parts" of most conlangs: Lexicon, Grammar, Texts and
> Conculture (Legratec system! I love acronyms...).
This should have a Phonology element added. Livagian would be P4.9,
L0.0001, G4, T0.0000000001, C2. A phlegratec score of c. 11/25, 44%.

I find the scheme lacking in several ways:

* It doesn't take into account how elaborate the completed conlang would
  be.
* It doesn't distinguish invention from documentation.
* It doesn't take into account how ab initio, a priori, the different
  aspects of the conlang are, or more generally how much work is involved
  in inventing and documenting this aspect of the conlang.

I'd suggest revising the system to:

(a) a notional absolute reckoning of the elaborateness of each of
    P, L, G, T, C (in their completed forms).
(b) a percentage for the extent to which each of P, L, G, T, C are
    borrowed/derived from, modelled on, prior sources.
(c) a percentage for how much each of P, L, G, T, C has been created.
(d) a percentage for how much each of P, L, G, T, C has been documented.

-- not a very practical scheme, but a more informative one.

--And.