Re: Has anyone made a real conlang?

Andrew Nowicki wrote:

>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?
  They are far more than just "names". If all we were doing was coming up
with *names* for languages, there wouldn't be so many pages full of conlang
grammars. Nor any discussion here about the odd linguistic features that
people are experimenting with.
  I think I have made a "real" conlang, but it would depend on your
criteria for "real". Rhean vocabulary is over 2400 words and growing, and
the lexicon in .xls format can be seen at
http://suzsoiz.free.fr/dict.xls
I update it regularly, and back up all additions in a couple locations
(learned that lesson the hard way!).
  Does it have any speakers? No. But that's not the point. I never intended
to teach it to the world as an auxiliary language.
  Rhean has a LOT of grammar, which is one of the reasons why the page is
taking so damn long. I do not have a grammar you could view (sorry), but a
grammar page is in the works (three of seven sections completed so far!)
and I'll make sure I notify you when I post the whole shebang. I can answer
any questions you might have about features that might be missing from a
conlang that was not yet "real". Hey, it might help me fill in some gaps!
Challenge me...

M