Well, you're both right in a way; we need to distinguish
Zamenhof-style invented langs from Panini-style codified ones,
I suppose ... On AUXLANG I got flamed for saying that modern
Chinese (Putongua) and Bahasa Indonesia were conlang/auxlangs
(and far more successful than certain notorious auxlang-cults
are ever likely to be). A small matter of labelling ...
Ed Heil wrote:
> I guess we'll have to agree to differ as to how widely we're willing
> to use the phrase "conlang." I can't myself see the use of widening
> the term to include every use of language which is in any way
> "artificial," which is what you have do to call literary Latin a
> "conlang."
Padraic Brown wrote:
> When I can I'll have a look! Of course, "Real Gothic" was a conlang as
> well, invented by St. Wulfilas (patron of conlangers?) in order to
> translate Christian scripture for the various Visigoth tribes. In other
> words, a sort of interlanguage which could be used by more than just one
> tribe.