Re: proposed conlang database & my classification

> Van:  Garrett Jones
>
> i have created a category "hobby language" under the personal
> category; this should suit your language, and probably my personal one
too.

Where should I categorize languages which are written merely as a an aid to
conculturing? Some people create a conculture to make conusers for their
conlangs, while I, on the other hand, create concultures per se, and write
conlangs merely to give more depths to my concultures (i.e. I do have
concultures with no conlangs, but I don't have any conlangs that were not
based on a previous conculture).

Also, it might be an idea to partially use chexk-boxes instead of radio
buttons in those places where options are not exclusive.
E.g., when asking for neutral sentence structure, it is either SVO or VSO
(or some other option) but never more than one (is it?), while on the other
hand, there may be multiple motivations for creating a language, and it is
imo to limiting too allows only one option here, so "check any which apply"
should be in order.

Maarten


> I assume the auxiliary in that description applies to its  classification
in
> the fictional world. The classification in my system applies to the
> real-world design motivation, which in this case would be
> artistic->scifi/fantasy. The alien category would be for languages just
> spoken by aliens; the general sci-fi category would hold a fictional
> auxiliary lang spoken across species (including humans).
Maybe you should change that to "alien phonology" for languages containing
sounds which cannot be  pronounced by humans. For instance, on my world of
Almaran, many languages are not racially bound but culturally bound. As
there exist mixed cultures (in various proportions) it is hard for me to
tell whether to classify a language as alien or not, even if it is primarily
spoken by an elven population. One of these languages is only a written
language, was designed by elves (aliens) but is now mainly used by humans...

> >"Multiple language sources" can mean two different things: individual
> >words from different languages (like Esperanto or Ludireo), or words
> >created by blending the sounds of words from more than one language (like
> >Lojban). It might be nice to distinguish these, although there are
> >probably few enough languages of the second kind that it wouldn't matter
> >much.
>
> I created two categories out of the blend (derivation method) category at
> your suggestion:
>
> -source blend (words borrowed multiple language sources)
> -word blend (words blended from multiple sources)
This is typically a category where you should allow multiple choices.

> >"Random" implies generating vocabulary or assigning meanings
automatically,
> >by computer or analogous methods like rolling dice or shuffling decks of
> >cards. My own language Tilya is an example of this approach, as is Mark
> >Line's Classical Yiklamu. I think the word you're looking for is
> >"arbitrary".
>
> I created two categories out of the random (derivation method) category:
>
> -arbitrary generation
> -automated random generation
I don't have your previous e-mail at hand, but was there a category for
"logical derivation from phonology" oslt? That's how I usually create my
vocab: I start with my phonology, see what words I can create trying to
reach the good ratio betweenoptimal use of phonemes and clearly distinct
morphemes). Then I assign meanings based on the culture, where
culturally/historically  important concepts are assigned to less complex
morphemes and less frequently used meaning to the more complex morphemes.

Maarten

Reply