>
http://conlang.alkaline.org
>
> changes:
> 1. I bulleted the design motivation list -
> reorganized the artistic list,
> added the 'naming language' category. I want to try
> to get most languages to
> fit into one of the sub-categories. Are there any
> other subcategories under
> these four that i didn't list, that languages fit
> into?
>
> personal
> -secret language
> -other
>
> artistic
> -sci-fi/fantasy human
> -alien
> -historical
> -naming language
> -other
>
> auxiliary
> -international
> -reform
> -simplified language
> -other
>
> experimental
> -logical
> -hypothetical
> -other
>
> 2. I created a new section called "Con-world
> information". It has two
> subsections: number of fictional users, and
> fictional world location. Of
> course this information wouldn't apply to auxlangs
> at all.
>
> 3. Combined "syntax" and "morphology" in to a
> "grammar" section:
>
> Grammar
> -phonology: number of sounds
> -morphology: isolationism vs agglutination
> -syntax: word order (SVO, SOV, etc)
> -syntax: number of cases used (nominative,
> accusative, ergative, etc)
> -syntax: number of tenses (past, present, future)
>
> this section is basically a good show for how
> complicated/simple a
> particular language is. An easy to pronounce
> language generally has less
> sounds than a harder one.
>
> 4. I completely reworked the whole vocab source
> section. I recognized that
> two things were being classified with one system:
> the source of the words,
> and the way the words were derived from their
> source. Thus, i created two
> categories: Vocab Source and Vocab Generation
> Method. I took your vocab
> source categorization scheme and reworked it... Now
> we have yet a third
> method :) The difference is that in my method *only*
> the language source is
> specified, nothing else. Conlangs derived from
> specific languages would
> specify a specific category, such as 1.1.2.1
> (English). Languages derived
> from multiple languages in a family, or from the
> proto-form of the family,
> would specify a more general category, like 1.1.1
> (Romance-based). For the
> whole list, see the page.
>
> Here is how the vocab derivation method system
> works:
>
> a posteriori
> -simplification
> -phonological modification
> -spelling reform
> -natural evolution (descendent)
> -blend (multiple language sources)
> -unaltered (grammar modifications only)
>
> a priori
> -categorical generation
> -random generation
>
> So, esperanto would be a blend, and Ido would be an
> 'unaltered'. Fictional
> languages like Klingon and Quenya would be a priori,
> random generation.
> Also, in the language classification section, i made
> these categories
> available to be specified:
> -primary vocabulary source
> -primary vocabulary derivation method
> -secondary vocabulary source
> -secondary vocabulary derivation method
>
> so, if a language is mixed a priori/a posteriori,
> the two biggest
> contributors can be named.
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Constructed Languages List
> [mailto:CONLANG@LISTSERV.BROWN.EDU]On
> Behalf Of Jan van Steenbergen
> Sent: Monday, March 18, 2002 12:28 AM
> To: CONLANG@LISTSERV.BROWN.EDU
> Subject: Re: proposed conlang database & my
> classification
>
> [SNIP]
> >Apologizing for being so boring,
> >Jan
>
> I would have to apologize also if you did :P
> ------
>
>
http://conlang.alkaline.org