Re: How to evaluate a conlang

2005/9/27, João Ricardo de Mendonça <somnicorvus@...>:
> How do you evaluate a conlang? How do you define a "good" or a "bad"
> conlang? I understand this is a personal criteria, so I'm not looking
> for a definitive answer. I just wanted to know other people's opinions
> on this.
>
> João Ricardo de Mendonça
The first thing that I look for is originality. I don't want to spend
much time reading about a conlang that's basically a natural langauge
with a few tweaks, or is too similar to other conlangs. And more
subjectively, I want "interesting" features - features that make me
think outside of the Indo-European/Japanese/Chinese box.

I also like completeness. Really good conlangs could be used to
translate an article or story without coming across too many gaps in
the grammar. (Naming languages and basic sketches of conlangs-to-be
aren't /bad/, if that's what the creator wanted. There's nothing wrong
with them. They're just not as interesting /as conlangs/, in my
opinion.)

Beyond that, it depends on the author's goals. A naturalistic conlang
should be plausible, a loglang should be logical, and so on.

--
Kate

Reply