Talk:Constructed language

Is 'conlang' Colloquial?

I've never heard this term. Who is it colloquial amongst?

Mr. Jones 12:35, 18 Feb 2004 (UTC)

Most creators of conlang. Google for it. Jor 20:49, 19 Feb 2004 (UTC)

Could Italian be called a Planned Language?

I don't know whether this is true (so don't call me stupid behind my back or I'll go and have a long session with my psychiatrist ;-) sob, sob, sob), but wasn't the Italian language planned beforehand, by a man named Dante Aglieri? (don't quote me on the spelling)

Not really. Dante wrote his Divine Comedy in the Tuscan dialect, and the book became so popular that over the centuries it defined the evolution of italian. But he never sat down and planned the Italian language. Since then, whenever language reformers have cleaned up Italian, they have turned to Tuscan for inspiration.

The authors of the 1611 authorized translation of the Bible (called the King James Version) had much the same effect on the English language, correct? --Damian Yerrick, who would love to see a sitcom series based on The Divine Comedy

What about Indonesian and Swahili?

A Request for Authors Knowledgable about "Solresol"

From SteveSmith: I added Solresol to the list of languages in Artificial language. I'm not up to doing a separate entry on it -- maybe someone else will -- but here's a good Web reference: http://www.ptialaska.net/~srice/solresol/intro.htm

Should "Cimerian" be in this article?

Can someone who knows about constructed languages please incorporate Cimeran into this article so Cimeran ceases from being an orphan? Kingturtle 23:24 May 13, 2003 (UTC)

No, Cimeran is unverifiable as a language. It should not appear on the list, nor should the thrice deleted article on on it be recreated. Angela

Thoughts on further Categorisation

Hi, I think it would be a good idea to set a policy regarding the list of conlangs that to be on the list, a particular conlang should either have been commercially published or released, or else have a significant following or popularity. This way we don't have a bunch of people putting up conlangs they made at home that no one's ever heard of and don't really deserve an article. Just my thoughts. -Branddobbe

Our policy that says articles must be verifiable should cover it. I've mentioned this inside HTML comments on the article so people editing it to add new ones will see it. Angela. 00:01, Jan 15, 2004 (UTC)

I have to disagree with you here, Angela. Since conlanging is a growing hobby, many people are inventing languages and publishing them to the web, making their languages verifiable (but impermanent). I think the language should either have been created by 1950 (Conlangs by year or be in a published work (book/film/album/game/etc.). Joe Cetina 05:40, 23 Feb 2004 (UTC)

That doesn't solve the problem of John Q. Conlanger adding his every little conlang to the list, because most of them were made after 1950. -Branddobbe 05:59, Feb 23, 2004 (UTC)

Read "by 1950" as "before 1950" :-) Joe Cetina 22:10, 23 Feb 2004 (UTC)

Oops. I had read it as "after 1950" for some reason. -Branddobbe 04:41, Feb 24, 2004 (UTC)

What's wrong with including things that are verifiable but impermanent? When such things hit VfD they are rarely deleted. The same problem occurs with micronations; Atlantium, for example, was only invented in 1981 but people voted to keep this because it was verifiable. We don't have policies on how long something needs to have existed, and there is no agreement on whether something needs to be famous to be included (see Wikipedia talk:Fame and importance). Angela. 08:41, Feb 23, 2004 (UTC) [link changed to reflect page move -- Oliver P. 03:59, 2 Mar 2004 (UTC)]

I guess it just doesn't seem very encyclopedic to include the hobbies of individuals. There are plenty of sites that link to "every little conlang" and we already link to those sites; I would interpret it as their job to report on those and our job to report on languages with some level of outside interest. Joe Cetina 22:10, 23 Feb 2004 (UTC)

It seems like we should be able to include noncommercial conlangs if they're significant enough, such Verduarian [1] which is known to probably thousands. -Branddobbe 04:41, Feb 24, 2004 (UTC)

I was thinking (until i hit this talk) to add the languages listed on [[2]] to the Category:Constructed_languages list, but there seems to be a lot of amateur languages, some of them are interesting, some are english rips. is there any consesus on the policy regarding constructed languages (wich to include), note/sugestions: iam talking about the Category:Constructed_languages that doesnt have any languages listed at the momment, i sugest that all the (artificial) languages be listed but the important/relevant languages in the list could point to articles in wikipedia and the other ones to their respective website. (also the relevant languages could be bold or something) - --Cyprus2k1 10:43, 6 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Addition of Fictional language called Baronh

Hi, I came here from Japanese Wikipedia. I found a lack on the fictional languages list of this page and added it, Baronh. You can find an article about this language in Japanese Wikipedia or http://dadh-baronr.s5.xrea.com/intl/indexroman.html Be force with you & Bile 'ena. 31 Jan 2004, 19:04 +0900 Sidr"yac

Removal of auxlang, artlang, loglang

What's the justification for deleting these words? They're commonly used in the conlang community; deleting them is removing information from the article. -Branddobbe 23:10, Apr 17, 2004 (UTC)

hi Branddobbe.

Wikipedians, and in general computing geeks, are too fervent in their bobbies ["bobbie"?] and shallowness in inventing new terms and throwing jargons. ["to throw a jargon" is a verb, I guess. A new verb, at that. Looks like the author is indulging in a little conlanging himself.] Terms like auxlang, artlang, loglang does [should be "do", shouldn't it?] not serve much purpose [question: What does "much" mean here?] and are more or less the passions of the conlangers themselves. No reputable real professional [odd ordering--and choice--of adjectives] encyclopedia would use them. [This is an opinion.] Nor professional publications on linguistics. [I can point you to some, since I, a linguistics graduate student, am working with a professional linguist on creating a conlang class at UCSD.] They tends ["does" they?] to be just inventions of the conlang communities [once a term is invented, it's invented. Can something "tend" to be invented? And whose invention of these terms would have made them reputable, if not those that deal with them themselves?] and are not good coinage either. [Can't say what it means to "be not good coinage".] Having words like auxlang, artlang, loglang seems to imply that artificial languages are categorically categorized into these groups, which is not true. [Not being a language creator, how would you know?] As one example, historical and respectable AL has many aspects, including political, scientific studies (not logic related)...etc. [That's not an example.]

the [words at the beginning of sentences are capitalized] subject and jargon "conlang" is itself very stupid. [Would one making a "reputable real professional encyclopedia" really say something like this?] With a few exceptions such[,] as [L]oglan, [E]speranto, [B]asic [E]nglish[,] etc, most so[-]called "conlangs" are just [the?] fantasies of [a?] few individuals. [So if one person--or even a small group of people--does something, it's illegitimate?] No respectable linguistics [linguist?] would study it. [I have evidence to the contrary. Read up on Eric Bakovic at UCSD.] "[C]onlang" really should be just called Artificial Languages, as opposed to Natural languages. [Based on your overwhelming evidence, I presume?] Today, i [I'll leave that uncapitalized] like the term "conlang" with the connotation that it refers to trivias these conlang hobbiest communities busy themselves with, while Artifial Language refers to those that had some historical or linguistic significance. (such as Esperanto and its ancestors, Loglan) [How do you know if any of the languages created by "few individuals" will have any historical significance?]

Anyway, i think wikipedia would be a much better encyclopedia if wikidedia [I agree, here: Wikidedia addicts have no place in a Wikipedia!] addicts refrain from immediate reverts of sincere edits. Give it 24 hours. [The previous led you to this statement? Huh.]

Xah P0lyglut 00:17, 2004 Apr 18 (UTC)

Whether they're in use by professional linguists or not, these terms are in widespread use by people who do this as a hobby, so it would be a fallacy to leave them out of the article. You can't remove the terms from the article because you don't think they're good terms. Whether or not you like them, they are used by the people who are the subject of the article. -Branddobbe 06:33, Apr 18, 2004 (UTC)

Just to make it clear, I'm a Wikipedia addict and a computer geek and a conlanger, hi. But I didn't invent those terms; they were years old when I first knew of the field (or hobby), and they're still in wide use, because they serve a purpose. It's of no importance that professional publications don't use them, and even so, Wikipedia is not a professional publication. An open encyclopedia should not include only the words and concepts that are consecrated by ivory-tower "respectable professionals".

As for the apparent implication that "artificial languages are categorically categorized into these groups", it's indeed not true, and that's exactly why definitions are in order.

Yes, many conlangs are just crude inventions (not "fantasies") of a few individuals, but conlanging is rather widespread, and as a phenomenon it deserves attention. And some conlangs are actually very well designed. Even some "respectable linguists" have created conlangs.

You say that conlangs really should be just called Artificial Languages, as opposed to Natural languages, but there are conlangs specifically made to look and feel like natural languages, while others are made especially to avoid their pitfalls, and there are even natural languages that have been in part constructed, so finer distinctions should be made (other than simply reserving "conlang" as a term of derision). In any case, "artificial language" seems adequate for all kinds, regardless of historical significance.

--Pablo-flores 16:18, 18 Apr 2004 (UTC)

That terms are part of the jargon of a relatively obscure but active group doesn't seem like an argument against their inclusion. Quite the opposite, in fact. If somebody who doesn't know the lingo comes across these terms, they should be able to look them up on Wikipedia. Isn't that partly what the Wikipedia is for?

-- Gwalla 22:43, Apr 18, 2004 (UTC)

Well put, Pablo! Examples of conlangs by linguists include Klingon. P0lyglut seems to think that conlanging is some sort of stupid hobby that doesn't deserve any attention--a joke. I consider your remarks, P0lyglut, rather ridiculous. I myself am a Wikipedian and conlanger, and like computers. Please go to my User page and look at my conlang; I hope you will reconsider your POV that most conlangs are "fantasies". Conlanging gives you hands-on experience with linguistics, and you can learn quite a lot from it. It is my favourite passtime. Trebor1990, 18 April 2004

Hear, hear! In addition to Klingon, the linguist Marketa Zvelebil (well respected in native American linguistic circles, I hear) did work on Vulcan, and J.R.R. Tolkien was a philologist, having studied and written vast amounts on Old English, Old Norse and Greek. Also, I'm a conlanger, with more than twenty grammatical sketches and three fully developed languages to my credit. Conlanging is not (any more) a unique phenomenon, able to be studied only for its obscurity. thefamouseccles 08:16 Apr 23 2004 (UTC)

---

Was it really necessary to put a link to an article on the Zompist bulletin board in here? There's already an offsite link to Zompist in the External Links section, and the Zompist article looks like a vanity article that is unlikely to grow beyond the stub stage and unlikely to be of interest to anyone who isn't already part of that community. Just my 2 cents. - Gwalla 07:42, May 3, 2004 (UTC)

Ïanà as an artificial Slovak dialect, or Wikipedia hoax?

Is anyone familiar with an artificial writing system called Ïanà, which is supposedly a French-influenced dialect of Slovakian?

While working on the list of Wikipedia:Orphaned Articles, I discovered an orphaned article about Ïanà. I posted questions at Talk:Ïanà and Talk:Slovak language, where there was some suspicion that the article might be a hoax.

Anyone know if this is real or bogus? The artificial languages talk page seems a logical place to ask. Kevyn 09:53, 12 Jun 2004 (UTC)

I suspect this is a nonsense. I am Slovak and have never heard about it, though I am interested in artificial languages. (OK, I know this is not the proof something does not exist - but how can such a thing be proved? There are no useable details in the article, e.g. in which part of Slovakia are those Ïanà-speakers supposed to live.) Language with 3 letters and 30 accent marks seems impossible to me. To claim it to be a dialect of Slovak language is absolutely nonsense, because Slovak language uses similar set of letters as most other languages (see for example: sk.wikipedia.org). Google search for "Ián Ivan" returns no results, search for "Ján Ivan" (which would be the correct name, if the person is Slovak) returns only results leading to contemporary people. Google for the names of the Ïanà books return nothing.

To say it shortly: (1) This article is the only reference to "Ïanà" in the whole Internet, and gives no verifiable details, and (2) it seems very improbably (though... everything is possible). Viliam Búr, 14:33, 20 Aug 2004 (UTC+2)

Now on VfD

Ïanà is now listed on Wikipedia:Votes for deletion Kevyn 22:31, 20 Aug 2004 (UTC)

• Ïanà has been deleted from Wikipedia, as per VfD.

Restructuring proposal

I changed Artificial language to Planned language because the former title is offensive (not NPOV) to many of the people who have taken the time to learn a planned language. --Chuck Smith

Oh, poppycock. "Artificial language" is the normal, commonly used term of art among linguists, and shouldn't be offensive to anyone who speaks plain English. "Artificial" means "created by man", nothing more or less. The very idea that "artificial" things are somehow inherently inferior to "natural" things is a silly idea. --LDC

"Planned language" ("Plansprache", "planlingvo") is definitely the preferred usage in interlinguistics (the study of international auxiliary languages); not beause the practitioners thereof think that "artificial" is bad, but because the unwashed masses are easily swayed to think that. (Artificial food? What horror!) However, it does *not* seem to be the preferred term for non-auxiliary languages, where "constructed language" (conlang) seems to be preferred; I would certainly not recommend changing everything from "artificial" to "planned" all willy-nilly. --Brion VIBBER

I'm inclined to think he is correct about this, and you've given me no reason to think your changes are justified, so I'm going to do some repairs based on that. --LDC

Sounds good to me. I guess I was being a little too literal about "Be bold in editing pages." (that's why I didn't change all of them) I'll work to repair things as well. In most texts about Esperanto I've seen planned language used... but constructed language does sound better. Thanks! --Chuck Smith

Don't let me dissuade you from boldness--you made some changes and gave a reason for them. I didn't like the reason, so I said so. Brion corrected my impression and gave some useful input, so I made some changes based on that and described them. Everything worked just like it's supposed to. :-) --LDC

Planned/Constructed/Artificial Languages

A restructuring proposal and a question:

• Now, that Artificial language is only a redirect to Constructed language, it seems to me the major reason for a separate Planned language has gone. Also as the three subcategories Logical language, Auxiliary language, and Artistic language got separate articles, I'd suggest moving the respective lists in these articles, with the positive side effect, that Constructed language would look less like a list of lists.
  • Sounds good to me. -- pne
• Also, what's got into the list (and what's got an own article and what's got deleted) looks rather arbitrary to mee. Another idea would be, to limit all references in this 4 or 5 articles to major Constructed language, for whatever value of major seems fitting. Inclusion in ISO 639 would be a primary candidate.
  • I'd tend to disagree, partly because it's a bit more difficult to determine major with non-auxlang conlangs. -- pne
• All other references can go into new article Constructed language (minor), which explains the phenomenon of large numbers of these and can give short specific information for some of them, which didn't get their own article.
• BTW, what are the conlangs based on Slavic and Celtic? I didn't find anything.
  • Slovio is a pan-Slavic auxlang. I don't know of any conlangs based on Celtic roots and grammar, though there are some Romlangs which use Celtic sound changes and phonology (e.g. Brithenig). -- pne 13:18, 25 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Pjacobi 11:23, 25 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Material removed from Lingua franca

This advocacy for conlangs will be of interest in this article, if it is not already adequately covered here.

Constructed languages tend to base their premise of universality on the assumption of a need for extreme simplicity, and the premise that non-native speakers should not be at a disadvantage. Their advocates claim that idiosyncratic elements as presented in ethnic languages are a major obstacle to a functional degree of use in that language. Unfortunately some learning curve still applies to constructed languages; and as such, their use is still rare.

According to advocates of constructed languages, the number of speakers is no measure of the intrinsic value of a constructed language.

If a constructed language (or other language with few speakers) were to be decided upon such as by international agreement to be used as an international auxiliary language, the number of speakers would rise to meet the demand. At present, the demand for speakers of constructed languages is limited, though Esperanto is said to have gained currency as a lingua franca among translators.

--Jerzy(t) 02:55, 2004 Aug 14 (UTC)

List of additional languages

This page contains a list with detailed explanations of several constructed languages, not yet on the Wikipedia article page:

http://www.rickharrison.com/language/index.html