Re: What criteria do you have for your own or others' languages?

* Sai Emrys said on 2006-12-06 09:27:18 +0100
> Please list, in your own words (preferably detailed) what criteria you
> apply to conlangs to judge them to be (in your opinion / for your
> purposes) "better" or "worse", or more or less "likable" or
> "impressive" etc etc. They can be subjective, objective, or both.
Hmm... being subjective here, I am very fond of originality (or at least
probable originality) in conlangs. So, I'd look at Klingon before a
romlang any day. This also makes me interested in engelangs, neat *new* ways
of building clauses and words, or new combinations of old structures.

So: originality -> interesting

Phonologically and even more subjective, I can't really stand too-simple
phonologies. Rotokas would drive me mad and Toki Pona gives me the
hives. I don't like too complex consonant-structures either, but it is
easier to have a specific *feel* or *sound* or *look* of a language when
there are more sounds to choose from. With small phonologies you have to
exhaust the possible combinations already on roots, while complex
phonologies are shaped by which combinations cannot or do not occur, if
that makes sense.

So: not too simple phonology and clear feel -> likeable

(The first impression one gets of a conlang is due to the orthography/
transliteration-scheme. I'm no fan of maggelity and not too fond of
etabnannery either.)

Completeness, being defined as "capable of being used for just about
anything", now that's impressive!

AFMCL, it trends more towards being likeable to me than interesting as
it is semi-naturalistic. As for impressive, that'll probably happen by
itself when it has a muuuch bigger vocabulary.


t.