Re: Has anyone made a real conlang?

> It seems to me that most of the languages discussed in this mailing list
> are not languages at all, but names of languages that exist only in the
> imagination of the person who invented the names. I doubt a language can
> be used for simple everyday communication unless it has a vocabulary of
> at least 1000 words.  Has anyone in this mailing list made a real
> conlang?
[snip]

1) The word for what you mean by 'conlang' is actually 'auxlang'.

2) Conlang != auxlang.

3) The fictional languages most of us are creating here are called
   'artlangs', because that's what they are: artistic creations like
   paintings or music.

4) Artlangs exist. A language doesn't need 1000 speakers before it comes
   into existence.

5) ( Conlang >= auxlang ) && ( conlang >= artlang ).

6) Some artlangs actually have enough vocabulary for everyday
   communication. Just ask Paul Burgess.

7) Please read the list archives and try to understand what it is we're
   doing here, before jumping to conclusions and posting inflammatory
   comments (intentionally or not).

8) You should seriously consider joining AUXLANG instead. The subject
   matter there is probably of much more interest to you.


T

--
The irony is that Bill Gates claims to be making a stable operating system
and Linus Torvalds claims to be trying to take over the world. -- Anonymous