Re: Has anyone made a real conlang?

En réponse à Andrew Nowicki :


>Those who do not have a computer cannot use this mailing list.
Ever heard of cybercafes?

>Making a web file and sending it to a website is a trivial task.
>You can make a text file if you cannot make an HTML file.
And explain me first why we *should* do that. Why is every conlanger
obliged to put his/her whole conlang vocabulary on the web just to satisfy you?

And HTML may be trivial for you, but most people find it difficult. Live
with it, not everyone is a genius like you...


>I spent a few hours comparing the stated vocabulary
>size with the one posted on the web.
And forgot that most often websites are not uptodate and even when they are
most people just don't bother put the full vocabulary on the site (what
for? It's not like thousands of people are gonna want to learn those
languages. It's not even a goal for us!). In most cases, the figures at
Langmaker are actually *more* valid than the ones you estimated from the
websites.

>  I did not count
>every word, just made a rough estimate.
Still, you forgot everything those people *didn't* put on the web, and
still didn't give any reason why we should do that. A lexicon is the worse
way to present a language on the web you know, because a language is much
more than a lexicon, and we prefer to work on the meat of things rather
than the skin. By the way, your metaphor of the car was completely wrong:
in a language, the engine is the grammatical structure, while the body is
the vocabulary, not the other way round.


>Computer programs are called may names, depending on
>their size and purpose. An operating system is bigger than
>most application programs, which are still bigger than
>functions (subroutines). There are games, spreadsheets,
>and many other programs. These names are used because they
>are useful.
But you keep on comparing uncomparable things. We already have enough terms
for conlangs. If we needed more, we would invent more. The simple fact that
we don't invent more shows that we don't need more.

>  I do believe there is need to describe conlangs
>more precisely than just artlangs and IALs.
But the descriptive words exist, you just never took the time to listen to
us use them. But if you had read our posts on this list rather than
arrogantly decided that we couldn't say anything that can ever interest
you, you would have seen that we refer to conlangs as whether they are a
priori or a posteriori, naturalistic or not (and naturalistic and a
posteriori are not synonyms). We have terms like artlang, auxlang, engelang
and a few others. other ways to classify conlangs all refer to the
grammatical structure, and as such don't need specific words. We just use
the same as used for natlangs. but what you want, classifying conlangs by
the size of their lexicon, is not only useless, but it's also misleading!
You forget one very important thing: vocabulary doesn't make a language. A
lexicon without a grammar is not a language. It doesn't even have the
potential to become a language(without engine, a car has no potential to
become a car, as you rightly said). You don't learn a language by reading a
dictionary. You need to learn the grammar first. But a grammar without a
vocabulary *is* a language, in the sense that it *has* the potential to
become a language (when you have the engine, the wheels (including the
steering wheel) and the frame, not much more is needed to have the car run).

>By the way, I have not accused anyone of anything.
Yes you did. It's not by insulting people and then say that you're not
insulting anyone that you make the insult less important. You just show
that you refuse to take responsibility for your acts. Grow up a little!


>Of course, not, but I dear to say (no matter how unpopular
>it is) that most people I know are either arrogant and have
>short attention span.
I can imagine. People of the same kind attract each other. That's also why
you are not so welcome here. Unlike you and your acquaintances, we are
usually pretty humble people, and we have a very long attention span.
That's what makes this list so special. We just have little patience for
know-it-alls who pretend to know all the answers and want to impose their
views to everyone around (no wonder you find people around you to have a
short attention span. Never thought the problem could actually come from
*you* rather than them?).

>  People in general cannot work as
>team members. You can either have them on your throat
>or under your heel. Internet could be used for many exciting
>projects if people were more cooperative.
Begin yourself by showing the example then. Until now, the only thing
you've showed to us is that you're incredibly uncooperative and refuse to
take seriously anyone whose opinion is just slightly different from yours.
So you're noone to dare talk about cooperation.

Christophe Grandsire.
http://rainbow.conlang.free.fr
You need a straight mind to invent a twisted conlang.

Reply