Re: proposed conlang database & my classification

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

Replies