Re: Most developed conlang

On 4/18/07, Jim Henry <jimhenry1973@...> wrote:
> On 4/18/07, Harold Ensle <heensle@...> wrote:
>
> > I wondered this myself a couple of years ago, so I looked around.
> ...
> > So, I decided to compile a list of languages that were speakable
> > (complete) and could be learned from the internet. Of course, if
> ....
> > So I compiled a list with the following criteria:
> >
> > 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.
>
> > If any of you know of other languages that satisfy these criteria,
> > this could be a good time to bring them up.
>
> gzb might not have fit your criteria a couple of years ago, but it
> probably does now.  It depends on how you define "essential words",
> perhaps.
>
> http://www.pobox.com/~jimhenry/gzb/gzb.htm
>
> I think probably Tokana and Tepa, mentioned earlier in this
> thread, also fit your criteria re: completeness of grammar
> and documentation thereof, though I'm not sure how large
> their lexicons are.
I don't know about Tokana, but I can tell you that Tepa has a lexicon
of 600+ stems. Of course, that doesn't mean a thing, since the
derivational processes in place will yield many more words than that.
Miapimoquitch, Tepa's successor (and inheritor of Tepa's basic
vocabulary), is even more derivationally profligate. Counting words is
fraught with difficulties (witness the hulabaloo over Eskimo snow
words).

Dirk