Re: Most developed conlang

On Wed, 18 Apr 2007 14:56:04 -0400, Ben Haanstra <kof@...> 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.
>
>Mmh it seems that developed seems to point out that it most be a big work
on
>the internet which is a priori conlang and speakable.
Again I must point out that this was not the answer to the
original posters question...nor was it intended to be. It was a
different inquery, but indirectly related.

>The question whether the grammar is completed is a question, as it's easy to
>combine words in a new way and define it as new grammar.
>
>My big point is about number one, as im working on this conlang which is
>supposed to not even go over 300 words. It's goal is to minimize the amount
>of words, Im even doubting whether to call it oligosynthesitic as the
>morphology is highly compounding but not specifically derivating or inflecting.
>
>What if a language is complete with under 2000 words?
This criterion was a quick method to try and assess completeness.
It was never considered "ideal", but I really think it is reasonable.

Consider your language for example. You say that it has less than
300 words. But what if you make an English/Your-language dictionary.
In English, you would need to define 2000 words. If you had such
a dictionary posted (which would be needed by English speakers),
then your language would meet that particular constraint.

So my original statement was not precise as I did not add the
condition that due to possible conflicts in the idea of what
constitutes a word in a particular language, it can be counted
dependent on the english equivalents. This would make sense
as the fluency count of 2000 was roughly based on English in the
first place.

Harold