Re: Has anyone made a real conlang?

Jan van Steenbergen wrote:

> Quite possible. But don't forget that there are a few ins and
> outs to vocabulary files that do not (or to a far lesser
> extent) apply to grammar pages. First of all, vocabulary is
> changing and growing constantly. Grammar evolves to a certain
> point, and then it is fixed. You can of course always make
> small modifications or additions, but basically nothing
> changes. That's why I put the grammar online as soon as I
> have it done. However, vocabulary is a different story.
> Personally I have the lexicons for my languages in MS Access
Interesting.  I decided Access was over-kill for my needs.

Do you have an actual relational structure, or just a set of un-related
tables?

> file into HTML. Besides, these files are in Dutch. So, before
> putting it on the web, I must: first translate everything;
Well...you don't _have_ to translate it.  You _could_ tell us non-dutch
speaking types "tough! Learn Dutch!". :).  I regard you translating your
work into english for us an act of kindness on your part, rather than a
"must be done" thing.  Just like putting it on the web at all. :)

> lots and lots of time. BTW I'm quite sure others have that
Oh definitely.  There are many tools to make various parts of the process
easier, but in the end, it all takes time.  And doubt any of us have quit
our day jobs. :)

> problem as well. Not even to mention the fact that many
> others have their notes on many different sheets of paper
> stored in many different places. No, when I think of it, I
> think the actual number of word in a language could actually
> be a lot HIGHER than langmaker.com says.
I totally agree.  I'm packing up my study at home (move preparation) and
discovering all sorts of scribbles and notes that I had forgotten about...

> > 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. I do believe there is
> > need to describe conlangs more precisely than just artlangs
> and IALs.
>
> Oh, but such distinctions exist already, although they
> usually don't deal with the size of a language but rather
> with its character or its purpose: conlang, artlang, auxlang,
> loglang, lablang, modlang, a priori, a posteriori,
> philosophical, experimental, personal, stealth, superset,
> etc.etc.etc. In my opinion such subdivisions are far more
> interesting and adequate than those based on size.
For the record, I'm satisified with the broad division of terms (natlang,
conlang, auxlang, artlang) that exist.  I see no need to classify by size,
especially since 'size' may not be meaningful anyway.  To many different
ways to measure the 'size' of a language.  We could end up classify a
natlang as being "not a real language"...

Reply