Re: lablang or engelang

Mike S:
> A quick tour through the thesaurus allowed yours truly to net a few
> more useless fish:
>
[...]
> ratlang - rationalistic language.  This one's dead at the gate.
I actually suggested this, before we lit on 'engineered language',
which is actually a better description of the category denoted
by 'engelang'.

> techlang/teklang - technically constructed lang
Was also considered, but thought too susceptible to alternative
unintended construals.

> arc(h)lang - architectured lang.
> analang - analytical language
> betalang - a language ready for field trials?
> designerlang - self-explan.
> intlang - intelligently (or intellectual) constructed lang
> reglang - language regularized according to small number of principles
> protolang - a prototype lang
> scilang - scientifically constructed lang.
> syslang - systematicized lang
> techlang/teklang - technically constructed lang
I find it perplexing that these are supposed to be alternative candidate
names for the same category, since they seem to describe rather
different categories from one another. As I've said in other
messages, if you *start* with the definition of the category you're
trying to name, the name will tend to suggest itself.

> Funny how there are several hundred people on this group who can
> construct whole languages but seems currently we are unable to
> construct one word.
Conlangers are famously unable to collaborate -- they are notorious
megalomaniacs (wielding godlike power over their own creations) and
schismatics. (That's why, even though it was born from schism, Lojban
is so remarkable -- it is truly and totally the product of an enormous
amount of collaboration.)

> I think lablang or engelang will have to be it.  Can the latter be enjlang?
The best way to effect such a thing is through your own usage rather
than through legislation. If you frequently use 'enjlang' it might
catch on. But if you don't, and merely wince at 'engelang', you are
probably doomed to go on wincing.

--And.