Re: Most developed conlang

On 4/18/07, David J. Peterson <dedalvs@...> wrote:
> Harold wrote:
> <<
> 1. Lexicon must be greater than 2000 (and contain essential words)
> 2. Lexicon must be "a priori". (some loans are acceptible)
> 3. Lexicon must be accessible on the internet.
> 4. Grammar must be complete.
> 5. Grammar must be able to be learned on the internet.
> 6. Language must be speakable.
>  >>
>
> One thing I've always found problematic about questions of this
> sort is that there seems to be a caveat, stated explicitly in numbers
> 3 and 6 up there.  If you go to the original question:
>
> John Crowe:
> <<
> Which conlang is the most highly developed (in terms of lexicon,
> grammar,
> usability, etc.) that is not intended in any way to be an auxlang?
>  >>
>
> Items 3 and 6 shouldn't have anything to do with the answer.
> Nevertheless, it seems to be implicitly understood that it does--
> that a language doesn't "count" unless everything about it is on
> the internet (a disadvantage to those whose HTML skills are
> nonexistent, or who don't have all the time in the world--or
> who simply prefer another method of language documentation).
I understood Harold's inclusion of these two items (internet presence,
speakability) to be purely practical. The first because it is
difficult to find descriptions of constructed languages otherwise, and
the second I suppose because we are all used to "speaking", as opposed
to emitting odors, or flashing light patterns, etc. I would hate for
this thread to devolve into a "gee, that's a stupid requirement" kind
of discussion.

The more interesting problem for me was the issue of "word". I
appreciated Harold's clarification that the 2000 word count referred
to the English glosses. But still, the issue of "wordhood" is worth
thinking about, so Teoh's post is very relevant.

Dirk

Reply