proposed conlang database & my classification

On Thu, 14 Mar 2002 08:46:08 -0800, Garrett Jones <alkaline@...>
wrote:

>3. I'd really like to get that database :)
You'll have it soon, but first I have to clean up some mess there.

>4. I'd really like that classification system to. Sidenote: if it's
slightly more detailed, what about #1 above? :P

It does not mean that it will be more work to enter the classification. :-b
My problem with your classification is, that our languages will be divided
mainly between "descendent of natural language" and "a priori, non-
categorical". So, that's why I propose to make a few subdivisions.

By the way, I fully agree with your distinction in classification between
the Prime Vocabulary Source and the Design Motivation.

Before giving my own classification, I would like some more remarks:
1. "Date added" and "Date modified" could best be automatized.
2. Three categories of estimated users seems to much to me (I'd prefer two).
3. The categories "Cases used", "Aspects used" and "Tenses" dig a big too
deeply. I think this is really too much information for one database entry.
4. To the category "Design motivation" it could be useful to add: Fictional
naming languages (for RPG's and the like) in the category "Artistic" and
Stealth languages in the category "Personal".

Now, here's my classification:

-------------------------------------------------------
1. Modifications of existing languages
   1.1. Latin
   1.2. English
        1.2.1. Simplifications
        1.2.2. Spelling reforms
        1.2.3. Superset
        (* these subdivision can also be applied elsewhere)
   1.3. German
   1.4. French
   1.5. Spanish
   1.6. Other
   1.7. Combinations of two or more existing languages

2. A posteriori
   2.1. Romance-based
        2.1.1. Romance-based languages (proper)
        2.1.2. Esperanto and relatives
   2.2. Germanic-based
   2.3. Baltic- and Slavonic-based
        2.3.1. Slavonic-based languages (proper)
        2.3.2. North-Slavonic languages
        2.3.3. Baltic-based
   2.4. Celtic-based
        2.4.1. Celtic-based languages (proper)
        2.4.2. Celto-Romance languages
        2.4.3. Celto-Germanic languages
   2.5. Other (existing) Indo-European branches
        2.5.1. Indo-Iranian-based languages
        2.5.2. Greek-, Armenian-, Albanian- and Illyrian-based languages
        2.5.3. Hettite- and Tocharian-based languages
   2.6. Fictional Indo-European branches
   2.7. Non-Indo-European languages
        2.7.1. Uralic-based languages
        2.7.2. Afro-Asiatic-based languages
        2.7.3. Languages based on other Asiatic or Austronesian languages
        2.7.4. Languages based on other African languages
        2.7.5. Languages based on Native American languages

3. Mixed a priori/a posteriori

4. A priori
   4.1. Categorical (philosophical languages)
   4.2. Non-categorical languages
   4.3. Pasigraphies (picture languages)
   4.4. Number languages
   4.5. Pasimologies (sign/gesture languages)
   4.6. Musical languages

----------------------------------------------------------

I must add here, that especially point 4.2. will need some elaboration in
the form of subdivisions, since it will cover a very large number of
languages. However, I consider myself unable to do this. Other people know
their way much better in this province in Conlang Land than I do.
I've never really understood the point of 3 (mixed-type languages).
Sometimes I get the impression that this category is some sort of garbage
can for everything that couldn't be placed elsewhere.

Hope this message got thru somehow.

With kind regards,
Jan

Reply