Talk:Constructed language

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to navigation Jump to search



Natural evolution[edit]

The opening sentence states "... instead of having naturally evolved as part of a culture". I don't think the 'as part of a culture' is needed or even true, as if the origins of a language are always due to culture (a dangerous word in that respect anyway). JAL 13:19, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

Ok, since no reactions to my comment, I'm going to change it. Jalwikip 12:28, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

Planned language[edit]

This article says that "planned language" is a synonym for "constructed language" sometimes used to refer to IALs. Well, that accounts for most everyday usage of the term, but in the literature the term is actually used with quite a precise meaning distinct from both "constructed language" or IAL: Namely a language constructed for human communication (no matter whether international or not). An example of a planned language that isn't an IAL is Lojban. An example of a constructed language that isn't a planned language is Klingon. The German and Esperanto Wikipedias actually get these distinctions right. Marcoscramer 02:00, 6 February 2007 (UTC) link[edit] has apparently been blacklisted. We've gotta get it removed from the blacklist, as it's one of the oldest and most important conlanging websites. I note that Langmaker was just speedy-deleted as well. PubliusFL 18:52, 15 February 2007 (UTC)


IMHO Solresol probably merits a mention in the main text. -- 13:39, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

"Audience, Uglossia, and CONLANG" link[edit]

Why is the link for the article "Audience, Uglossia, and CONLANG" one to Google's cached version? The article itself appears to exist at 01:00, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

I've seen the original link be down sometimes. Sai Emrys ¿? 22:06, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

Edit warring over an article[edit]

There appears to be some edit warring over this change:


An interview with Sabira Ståhlberg]

Interestingly enough, neither side has presented their argument on this page. I'd like to invite them to do so now. For my 2 cents, if there's no reason to get rid of it, I'd change it to:


—The preceding unsigned comment was added by Benhocking (talkcontribs) 17:39, 26 July 2007.

It's not an edit war. The text was removed because Madzo (talk · contribs) is one of three accounts spamming a number of articles with links to this magazine. To combat spamming, all links are removed. If you feel that the article is good, you may re-add it. Adding numerous links to the same website across a number of articles is considered spam — it is an attempt to raise the profile of that site — they are routinely removed and the users warned. — Gareth Hughes 17:43, 26 July 2007 (UTC)
Well, it was added twice and removed twice. I wasn't trying to insult anyone with the "edit war" description. I just thought that some explanation should be given (by both parties) at that point, so I added this little discussion to the Talk page. Thank you for providing your perspective. As for the value of the article, I don't have a strong opinion either way. Ben Hocking (talk|contribs) 17:51, 26 July 2007 (UTC)
I'd say it might be useful to link from the Esperanto article, but probably isn't terribly relevant here. It only talks about Esperanto (with passing mentions of Volapük and Ido in relation to Esperanto), not conlangs in general. PubliusFL 18:51, 26 July 2007 (UTC)


One week ago, the article about Slovio was deleted after a prematurely aborted discussion, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Slovio (2nd nomination). I have issued a request for undeletion: Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2007 August 10#Slovio. Please give your opinion there. If the article gets undeleted, which I sincerily hope for, anyone knowledgable about the subject is invited to participate in the discussion. —IJzeren Jan Uszkiełtu? 08:56, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

The article about Slovio should be UNDELETED as the project of Slovio is an interesting and useful project of an international artificial language that may help people from the west understand and commmunicate in all Slavonic countries without the necessity to learn all those 14something difficult languages. Slovio is a live project with a good prospect in the future. Personally, as a teacher of English language, I had several jobs teaching Czech. My students were Englishpeople and the Dutch. I must say, Slavonic languages are really difficult to learn for people from the west of Europe. I am sure that Slovio is an easy way for the many people how to cope with the "Slavonic Babylon" in everyday life, business, and travelling in east Europe. So, I am also 100% sure the article Slovio should be here in English Wikipedia. BTW articles about Slovio are in the folowing Wikipedias: Bulgarian, Catala, Kaszebsczi, Chuvash, German, Esperanto, Spanish, Finnish, French, Croatioan, Upper Sorbian, Hungarian, Interlingua, Italian, Chinese, Korean, Dutch, Polish, Portugal, Russian, Slovenish, Slovak, Serbian, Swedish, and Ukrainian.--Anglos (talk) 10:29, 17 December 2007 (UTC)
This is the wrong place for such discussion. Please post a note at Wikipedia:WikiProject Constructed languages/Edit wars and deletions and then follow the instructions for starting a deletion review. Posting comments on this discussion page will accomplish nothing, because nobody here has any power to undelete Slovio. Sai Emrys ¿? 22:24, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

Clearly my complaint about Volkspraak should have gone there as well. However, I would like to show solidarity with Slovio. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 05:39, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

I like Slovio. I think that article should be written again. Slovio is very useful constructed language. -- MR.CRO95(talk) 26 March 2008, 23:01 (CET) —Preceding comment was added at 22:01, 26 March 2008 (UTC)


"As with Interlingua, it is difficult to explain how LsF might be viewed as constructed." - I find this a ridiculous sentence. Someone took a natural language, and changed it to something else. That's construction. It's like taking a big block of wood, making a sculpture out of it, and tell everyone that's not 'constructed'. Jalwikip 12:50, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

I agree. Same with the similar content about Interlingua higher in the intro. PubliusFL 16:23, 26 October 2007 (UTC)
This is erroneous on several levels. To begin with, the analogy is flawed. Say rather that you take a car and modify it--raise it, lower it, change the engine. Have you "constructed" a car? In a sense, yes; but you haven't built one from scratch, which would involve a lot of forging, casting, etc. You aren't even on a par with a factory. For the first problem is that THERE IS NO SUCH THING AS A NATURAL LANGUAGE. All languages are human artifacts; they do not naturally occur any more than tools. (Even tools made by animals other than man aren't particularly "natural.") However, there are different degrees of "construction." LsF is a kind of planned creoloid; the processes involved and intentionally invoked are largely the same as those that unintentionally produced the Romance languages. It is, in other words, a minor mod of an existing language. Interlingua is similar: it's a planned inter-Romance dialect. Esperanto, on the other hand, is a major modification, taking features from various languages and trying to create a harmonious whole from them. So it's less "natural" than LsF or Ia, but certainly no less real than any "natural" language.Ansric (talk) 15:43, 20 August 2008 (UTC)
Do you have any objections to my recent rewrite of the paragraph on Interlingua and LsF, their naturalness or artificiality?
I see the beginnings of an edit war over the sentence "one could argue that all human languages are artificial"; I would rather see it with a cite to some theorist who actually argues that, if it's going to be in the article. -- Actually, I just thought of a possible cite; Claude Piron cites Rabelais to this effect in Le Defi des Langues. --Jim Henry (talk) 18:12, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

Where has Folkspraak gone?[edit]

About six months or so ago I read a very helpful article on this site about the artificial pan-Germanic language "Folkspraak". The article was helpful, current, and presented comparisons of different languages and this new language which I found fascinating because of the way in which language evolves and relates through time and across cultures. This page was directly responsible for my newfound interest in English etymology. It's gone! Why would such a helpful, comprehensive, page whose content is not duplicated or available anywhere else be deleted?

There are individual Pokemon with Wikipedia entries. There are 8-bit Nintendo characters who receive pages and further sub-pages. Why would anyone with the slightest notion of or respect for scholarship delete Folkspraak? I don't speak the language, I don't participate in its construction, but I can clearly see that it is a new and interesting development, with more practicality than older invented languages like Esperanto.

Tonight I wanted to show my girlfriend the Wikipedia entry for Folkspraak because she had thought it was such a bold idea and hoped to read the examples of the Lord's Prayer in German, Dutch, English, and Folkspraak. We couldn't do that, because someone thought that the space could be better used for such gems as aged Chilean pageant winners[1] and a playlist of songs about dogs [2].

I know that it is difficult for Wikipedians to selflessly expand, prune, edit, and judge articles. I appreciate that I take advantage of their hard work every time I use this service. However, it baffles me that Wikipedia seems so often to err on the side of stupidity. I cannot imagine who decides that an article about an all new invented language, highlighting original techniques for creating an intelligible whole out of a babel of assorted languages is not worth reading. It is important, it is original, it is of interest to serious students of language, literature, linguistics, and etymology. It clearly has the power to inspire people. Why is it unworthy? And why do we instead have a record of every one of the five General Mills Monster cereals, from the popular Count Chocula to the discontinued Fruit Brute?

I am just writing to express my sadness at the way Wikipedia seems to be heading. I will lose all faith unless Folkspraak is re-instated within the month and the Brutus' that stabbed it in the back are reprimanded. I may cry as I remove Wikipedia from my bookmarks. Please; exhume Folkspraak and let your people learn!

   "The best lack all conviction, while the worst
   Are full of passionate intensity"

-From W.B. Yeats "The Second Coming"

(William Butler Yeats Wikipedia Entry: 7457 words Buffy the Vampire Slayer(TV series):9811 words) —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 05:28, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

I saw infos about Folkspraak on Wikibooks. Like Slovio, it is very useful. If you learn Folkspraak, you can talk to German and Dutch people. I think it's very easy and, like I said, useful. -- MR.CRO95(talk) 27 March 2008, 10:45 (CET) —Preceding comment was added at 09:46, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

More specific criticism of external links?[edit]

Someone added this template to the external links,

The external links in this article may not follow Wikipedia's content policies or guidelines. Please improve this article by removing excessive or inappropriate external links.

Can said person please make more specific criticism here on the talk page about which links are irrelevant or inappropriate? Most or all of them look fine to me. Though maybe a few should be spun off into sub-articles like Artistic language and Engineered language...? If we make an article about methodologies of creating conlangs (as opposed to types of conlangs) -- that might be worth doing, though tricky in avoiding HOWTO violations -- then the whole section of "how-to" external links could be spun off to said article. --Jim Henry (talk) 13:34, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

I removed the "linkfarm" template since no one has objected to any specific links in the last week. Shortly after writing the above I removed or commented out some links that seemed unsuitable or duplicative of others. --Jim Henry (talk) 19:18, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

Rewrite of text about artificiality or not of certain auxlangs[edit]

Here's a draft rewrite of the problematic passages about Interlingua and Latino sine Fleksione that earlier posters have mentioned:

The synonym planned language is sometimes used to refer to international auxiliary languages and other languages intended for actual use in human communication. Some prefer it to the more common term "artificial", as that term may have pejorative connotations in some languages. For example, few speakers of Interlingua consider their language artificial, since they assert that it has no invented content. While this is not true of Esperanto and Ido, some speakers of these languages also avoid the term "artificial language" because they deny that there is anything "unnatural" about the use of their language in human communication. (In Esperanto itself, the equivalent of English "artificial" does not have the same pejorative connotation, having more connection with the concept of "art".)

Calling languages "planned" also addresses a difficulty with the term "constructed language": a few languages are loosely grouped under this heading as a result of shared history and uses but are not, by their proponents, themselves viewed as constructed. Interlingua's vocabulary is taken from a small set of natural languages with much less phonological modification than in Esperanto or Ido, and its grammar is based closely on these source languages, even including a certain degree of irregularity; its proponents describe its vocabulary and grammar as standardized rather than invented by the International Auxiliary Language Association, a linguistic research body.

Similarly, Latino sine Flexione (LsF) is a simplification of Latin from which the inflections have been removed. As with Interlingua, some prefer to describe this process as "planning" rather than "constructing" the language. Both LsF and Interlingua are considered major auxiliary languages, although only Interlingua is widely spoken today.

If no one objects I will copy this into the main article in a few days. Meanwhile feel free to suggest further edits here. --Jim Henry (talk) 13:47, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

Done. --Jim Henry (talk) 21:46, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

The sentence : "it has no invented content. While this is not true of Esperanto and Ido" is highly questionable. If you look at you will convince yourself to the contrary. Some are considering the 45 correlatives (when, where, what... then, there, that ... never, nowhere, nothing etc) as "artificial" but even they were not invented from thin air (in Eo: kiam, kie, kio... tiam, tie, tio... neniam, nenie, nenio...). Esperanto has just regulated the way these words are build. Ido uses "natural" words for those correlatives.

--Remush (talk) 18:21, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

"with much less phonological modification than in Esperanto or Ido" same remark as here above. Look at There is no more variation between Esperanto and the various languages using the same word, than between those languages themselves. English is the language that deviates most from the general way a word is pronounced.

--Remush (talk) 18:33, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

Conlanger community[edit]

I fixed a redirect link to conlanger that now goes to List of language inventors, but that list has little to do with the conlanger community, which is the subject of the paragraph where the link occurs; most of the language inventors on the list aren't particularly involved in the community mentioned here. Should there be another article on the conlanger community as such, not on the CONLANG mailing list per se since that was judged non-notable a while ago and deleted, but on the broader community including the CONLANG list, the relay list, ZBB, the LJ conlangs community, the LCS and LCC, etc...? Or should we add that as a section here and spin it off to another article when/if it gets long enough? Main sources for such an article or section could be Higley's 2000 article and her 2007 book on Hildegard, and maybe some of the videos of talks from LCC1 and LCC2. --Jim Henry (talk) 21:46, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

I think you'd be hard pressed to find reliable third-party sources for such an article. At most you'd get the occasional article on a particular conlanger, but next to nothing on the community. — Gwalla | Talk 19:05, 17 August 2008 (UTC)
I just mentioned two such sources -- one, "Audience, Uglossia, and CONLANG: Inventing Languages on the Internet" by Sarah L. Higley is already referenced (and linked) in the article. Her more recent book has a chapter on modern artlangers including some discussion of the online community. If we can find one more source I think we're good to go. --Jim Henry (talk) 22:24, 18 August 2008 (UTC)
The 'one more source' I thought we would need is probably Arika Okrent's In the Land of Invented Languages; I've heard things about it but haven't seen a copy yet. Diana Slattery's recent article "Conlanging: the Not-so-secret Vice" might qualify too, but I'm not sure if the zine it was published in will qualify with the deletionists as a reliable source. A talk on the conlang community's history by David Durand and Sally Caves during the recent Language Creation Conference at Brown U. is helpful as well, when and if the video of it is online and we can cite it/link to it thus. I don't have much time for editing Wikipedia lately, but if there appears to be support for spinning off the section on the conlanger community's history into another article and expanding it, I'll work on it some while hence. --Jim Henry (talk) 01:08, 30 May 2009 (UTC)

Telescope rule[edit]

Someone has a "citation needed" tag at the end of the "Telescope rule" paragraph. Why is the internal link to Propaedeutic value of Esperanto not citation enough? I'm going to remove the cite needed tag in a few days unless someone objects. --Jim Henry (talk) 14:01, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

Possible native speakers of Interlingua[edit]

This [3] isn't a good enough source to cite by itself, but it may give someone a starting point to track down more definite information. --Jim Henry (talk) 21:09, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

Rewrite/reformat of complex material in history section[edit]


The 17th century saw the rise of projects for "philosophical" or "a priori" languages. It was pioneered by Francis Lodwick's A Common Writing (1647) and The Groundwork or Foundation laid (or So Intended) for the Framing of a New Perfect Language and a Universal Common Writing (1652), Sir Thomas Urquhart (Logopandecteision, 1652) George Dalgarno (Ars signorum, 1661) and John Wilkins (Essay towards a Real Character, and a Philosophical Language, 1668) producing systems of hierarchical classification that were intended to result in both spoken and written expression. Gottfried Leibniz with lingua generalis in 1678 pursued a similar end, aiming at a lexicon of characters upon which the user might perform calculations that would yield true propositions automatically, as a side-effect developing binary calculus. These projects were not only occupied with reducing or modelling grammar, but also with the arrangement of all human knowledge into "characters" or hierarchies, an idea that with the Enlightenment would ultimately lead to the Encyclopédie.

is pretty complex and moderately hard to read. What about this:

The 17th century saw the rise of projects for "philosophical" or "a priori" languages, such as:

These early taxonomic conlangs produced systems of hierarchical classification that were intended to result in both spoken and written expression. Leibniz had a similar purpose for his lingua generalis of 1678, aiming at a lexicon of characters upon which the user might perform calculations that would yield true propositions automatically, as a side-effect developing binary calculus. These projects were not only occupied with reducing or modelling grammar, but also with the arrangement of all human knowledge into "characters" or hierarchies, an idea that with the Enlightenment would ultimately lead to the Encyclopédie.

If nobody objects in a few days I'll incorporate that rewrite into the main article. --Jim Henry (talk) 17:52, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

Looks good to me. Go for it. — Gwalla | Talk 15:53, 27 August 2008 (UTC)
Done. --Jim Henry (talk) 20:50, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

Additional citations?[edit]

After the edits I've done in the last week or two, does anyone still think the "This article needs additional citations for verification" template at the top of the article is still needed? If so, in which sections? If nobody objects in a week or so I'll delete that. --Jim Henry (talk) 20:50, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

Done. --Jim Henry (talk) 17:06, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

"secret language" and "political language"[edit]

I removed the terms "criptlang" and "politlang" from these paragraphs -- neither of them (or "cryptlang") gets any relevant Ghits, so unless someone provides evidence that they're in use, we don't need to use those terms here. However, I'm not sure we need to list those two as top-level categories in any case; among conlangers the three-way classification into engelangs, auxlangs and artlangs is pretty well established and other types (e.g. personal or hermetic languages) are usually considered subtypes of those three. Can User:NoychoH provide any evidence for the general use of those terms as coordinate with engelang, auxlang, etc.? Wikipedia is not about improving on the terminology of a field, but about observing and documenting what terminology is actually used. --Jim Henry (talk) 18:41, 2 September 2008 (UTC)
Also, the things discussed in the article on "language game" to which "secret language" redirects, and the examples given of political languages, seem barely to qualify as conlangs, being regularizations or slight modifications of natural languages. --Jim Henry (talk) 18:43, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

new constructed languages?[edit]

Where would one write an article on a new constructed language? I've come upon Niw Englisc, and would like to put an article up on it, but I'm a little hesitant as wikipedia's got patrols going around deleting articles on such things. Would my article on a simple, new, constructed language last? --JamesR1701E (talk) 03:35, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

Based on past experience, it largely depends on what sources you cite. Can you cite sources other than the language creator's own website showing that other people are interested in it / have been influenced by it, etc.? If you can, how many and of what kind? If your sources aren't respectable enough by the nebulous standards of the deletionist faction, there's probably going to be an AfD vote.
As for "where": if you have a good set of sources that make deletion unlikely and thus writing the article worthwhile, you could go to List of constructed languages, add the language to to the list with double brackets around its name, click the link and edit the new article. --Jim Henry (talk) 16:55, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

Orphan reference: "Hetzron 1990"?[edit]

For example, Modern Hebrew was modeled on Biblical Hebrew rather than engineered from scratch, and has undergone considerable changes since the state of Israel was founded in 1948 (Hetzron 1990:693).

Who is Hetzron and what is the title of his or her article, book, or whatever? --Jim Henry (talk) 15:08, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

Proslova, Slovo, & Slovio[edit]

Any interest in including these universally understood slavic languages? I wouldn't want to put the energy into it if it would be controversial, but they are conspicuous by their abscence.Die4Dixie (talk) 07:02, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

I'm not sure they're famous/influential/etc. enough to merit discussion in this main article; maybe in International auxiliary language? What sources can you cite for their importance, notability and what-have-you? --Jim Henry (talk) 01:11, 30 May 2009 (UTC)
Well, for one there is this source: Tilman Berger: Vom Erfinden Slavischer Sprachen. I don't think any of these languages would merit an article on its own (hell, even Slovio was deleted), but an article about auxiliary Slavic languages (or constructed Slavic languages) would certainly be in order. The sad thing is only that the deletion army will probably point out that since none of the languages discusssed is significant enough for an article, the whole article should go as well. Therefore I'm afraid writing it would be a waste of time. A few lines in international auxiliary language might work, though. —IJzeren Jan Uszkiełtu? 08:48, 30 May 2009 (UTC)
That seems like a good start - a few well-cited lines can grow gradually into a new article on the group, and possibly from that into individual articles if they grow in notability. DenisMoskowitz (talk) 15:15, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

Another series based language[edit]

in the Macross universe, where does the Zentraedi language place in all this? It might be of use to the article too. Murakumo-Elite (talk) 07:11, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

It might make more sense to add a brief mention of it to Artistic language rather than the main "Constructed language" article. --Jim Henry (talk) 18:53, 30 August 2009 (UTC)

Notability of Eurolengo and Mondlango?[edit]

The success of Esperanto did not stop others from trying to construct new auxiliary languages, such as Leslie Jones' Eurolengo, which mixes elements of English and Spanish, or He Yafu's Mondlango, which introduces more English roots instead of Latin ones.

Are Eurolengo and Mondlango two of the most notable post-Interlingua auxlangs? I don't think so. Probably we should pick a different couple of examples to mention in this context where we're saying that Interlingua wasn't the last auxlang to come along. But as obscure as Eurolengo and Mondlango are, I'm having a hard time coming up with others that are significantly more notable (although I can think of many that are roughly equally notable, i.e. not very; worth mentioning in International auxiliary language, maybe, but not here). --Jim Henry (talk) 18:53, 30 August 2009 (UTC)

I don't understand what WP (in English) has against Mondlango. This language has a group of follower which may not be big, but which is not less than many (most?) other constructed languages. And there are many WP pages devoted to other constructed languages as this page can show. Despite a vote for Keep, the Mondlango page has been deleted. I wish someone expert with WP (which I'm not) can restore it.Cazaux (talk) 11:55, 2 October 2014 (UTC)

Programming languages: where are they in this article?[edit]

I would like to draw your attention that computer language article has as its first links a link to this article. Is it worth mentioning in this article that programming languages which are a fusion of natural languages, mathematics, computer science and strict logic came into being in 19-20th centuries and are constructed/artificial languages designed and polished by humans? Maybe computer/programming languages belong to the engelang group? Kazkaskazkasako (talk) 11:22, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

The problem is with the link from Computer language, not with the content of this article. Programming languages are simply a completely different kind of thing from constructed human languages. I would even argue that the word "language" is not used in the same sense in both contexts. They aren't engelangs, even, although they have slightly more resemblance to engelangs than to other kinds of conlangs; engelangs are intended to be spoken, and in general to be capable of expressing anything humans might want to talk about, whereas programming languages are intended to be parsed by a compiler, and even the most general-purpose of them are far more limited in scope than the typical conlang. --Jim Henry (talk) 18:56, 30 August 2009 (UTC)

Idea: explicitly delimit what this article is about (e.g., NOT about Programming languages)[edit]

The penultimate (2nd-to-last) sentence of Constructed_language#Planned.2C_constructed.2C_artificial (at least, in a certain recent version -- the version with "oldid=547619262") says: [first quote]:

This article deals with "planned" or "constructed" languages designed for human/human-like communication.

Now, apparently that means that this article does not deal with Programming languages (such as, e.g. Fortran, C, Bash, and Python). (right?) As explained in the article about Programming languages, apparently Constructed languages lack [second quote:] "the precise and complete semantic definition that a programming language has." There you have it! (right?)

I suggest that right near (e.g., immediately after) the above quoted sentence, (see the "[first quote]" -- the <blockquote> above) might be a good place to state explicitly -- since it seems to be true -- that

Programming languages are outside the scope of this article.

(right?) Any comments, before I make that EDIT?

By the way, the problem with the erstwhile link from the lede of the "computer language" article has been remedied, apparently.

Resolved: "Case closed."

That article ("computer language") is now [since 10-October-2008] a re-direct to the article about Programming languages, and now it has only ONE hyperlink to this article, and that link occurs way down in the section on "Design and implementation"; -- and it is present there only as part of an explanation about how/why "constructed languages" are different from Programming languages. --Mike Schwartz (talk) 10:07, 31 March 2013 (UTC)

A Costructed Language made in 1820's[edit] —Preceding unsigned comment added by Akj09 (talkcontribs) 20:06, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

This universal language of James Ruggles (1829) is possibly not major enough to mention in this article; maybe in the history section of International auxiliary languages? It's briefly mentioned in Arika Okrent's book and in Donald Boozer's traveling conlang history exhibit. --Jim Henry (talk) 23:50, 6 December 2009 (UTC)
Also in this University of Chicago Magazine article by Arika Okrent. --Jim Henry (talk) 23:59, 6 December 2009 (UTC)


Why is Vuk Karadzic not mentioned? His is probably the only constructed language to survive and even flourish. (talk) 12:13, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

Wasn't his contribution a spelling reform? It's not like he actually invented a new language, just came up with spelling conventions for an existing vernacular AIUI. — Gwalla | Talk 22:33, 13 April 2010 (UTC)
You are indeed correct: Vuk Karadzic. TechBear | Talk | Contributions 22:50, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

Atlantean Language Article Proposed for Deletion[edit]

Atlantean is the Klingon-maker's second most popular language (at least it made it into the movie and received some explanation in media), and conlangs in widely-distributed books or movies is rare (The Lord of the Rings, Avatar, Star Trek 2).

I would just as well leave Wikipedia to its own devices after so many of my friends in Academia have been spurned by it, but could someone say something on Atlantean's behalf? Or at least explain to me the explanation behind this latest mischief on Wikipedia's behalf?~ Wikipedia page discussion Atlantean deletion

Blissglyphs (talk) 08:44, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

No, I won't! It obviously will survive. Rursus dixit. (mbork3!) 20:34, 11 January 2011 (UTC)


I found out that there's a conlang called Unish made by Korean linguists. We don't have enough sources to make a separate page on Unish. Komitsuki (talk) 14:27, 27 September 2011 (UTC)

Portal:Constructed languages nominated for deletion[edit]

Portal:Constructed languages has been nominated for deletion, please see discussion at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Portal:Constructed languages. — Cirt (talk) 04:23, 17 November 2011 (UTC)

Non-standard use of IPA symbols[edit]


Is it legally or morally permissible to use an IPA symbol to represent a sound other than the one assigned to it. For example. I want to use ọ (o with a dot below it) to represent the oi diphthong in a conlang? Prsaucer1958 (talk) 03:45, 19 December 2011 (UTC)

Hi Prsaucer1958, and thanks for your message. I'm not sure of the answer to this, and I think you might get a better response at the languages reference desk, as this page is only for discussing the contents of the article, rather than general linguistics questions. Best — Mr. Stradivarius on tour 08:17, 19 December 2011 (UTC)

Conlang flag[edit]

Revisiting here after a long absence, I find the accurate, footnoted description of the flag that used to be here has been replaced by an inaccurate, undocumented description. I've been trying to understand what happened.

Back when, the image caption correctly stated that the flag is a symbol of the conlanging community, developed by the membership of the CONLANG mailing list, and a bit about its design (like, the significance of the Tower of Babel). I remember one or two footnotes documenting its origin and the symbolism in the design. At some point somebody had tagged part of it as needing a citation, which made no sense to me since there was already a footnote on the caption that included what had been tagged as needing a citation, but that got cleared up. Apparently, though, since I was last here, somebody removed the image entirely, on the grounds that a flag made up by a mailing list is non-notable (as if notability were required for each fact in an article, rather than for the topic of the article as a whole), and then somebody else added the flag with the inaccurate statement that it's the flag of the LCS.

It seems to me that the removal of the correctly-captioned image was incorrect. However, since it was removed once, I thought I should check here before tinkering with it at all. Do we need to gather some sort of evidence somewhere that the flag is a commonly used symbol of the community, in order to protect it from being removed again once the image caption is corrected? --Pi zero (talk) 15:30, 6 June 2012 (UTC)

I agree with you. I'd also like to add that the CONLANG mailing list is not unnotable at all; in fact, it has been the central meeting place for conlangers from all over the world for about two decades now! It there is any institution that has the right to develop a "conlang flag" at all, it is this very mailing list. I'm kind of surprised that it is now mentioned as the flag of the Language Creation Society. The truth is that the flag had already caught before the LCS ever existed. Many conlangers (including myself) use this flag on their pages, and when the LCS was established, it was not more than logical that they would follow suit by adopting it, too.
I still remember how this flag came into being, which was indeed quite a nice piece of community work. Several people, including myself, made projects, all of which were thoroughly discussed - colours, symbols, rules for good flag design, etc. The ultimate result was based on all these suggestions and discussions, and this is also how I became one of the five people credited for the design. —IJzeren Jan Uszkiełtu? 20:45, 6 June 2012 (UTC)

External Link Removal[edit]

User:TheZelos (and others), don't remove useful links (such as the one for wikia's larger conlang wiki).
Darkgamma (talk) 22:37, 13 September 2012 (UTC)

There are considarably better ones that are far better without refering to corrupt sites TheZelos (talk) 18:40, 27 April 2014 (UTC)


Ὁμοία ἐστὶν ἡ βασιλεία τῶν οὐρανῶν θησαυρῷ κεκρυμμένῳ ἐν τῷ ἀγρῷ, ὃν εὑρὼν ἄνθρωπος ἔκρυψεν, καὶ ἀπὸ τῆς χαρᾶς αὐτοῦ ὑπάγει καὶ πωλεῖ πάντα ὅσα ἔχει καὶ ἀγοράζει τὸν ἀγρὸν ἐκεῖνον. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 10:23, 17 November 2012 (UTC)

Early Constructed Languages[edit]

"Kabbalistic grammatical speculation was directed at recovering the original language spoken by Adam and Eve in Paradise, lost in the confusion of tongues."

This contributes little if anything and is unsourced. May I delete it? Kortoso (talk) 17:35, 13 June 2013 (UTC)

Don't we need a criticism section?[edit]

If constructed languages have no genuine problems, and no perceived problems, why aren't we all rushing to learn them? If they do have genuine or perceived problems, why don't we have a Criticism section? Tlhslobus (talk) 12:29, 7 February 2014 (UTC)

Generally speaking criticism sections should be avoided unless they add actual encyclopedic value. Even then, they must adhere to Wikipedia standards on neutrality and be supported by reliable, third-party sources. With these points in mind, what do you propose to include in a criticism section? TechBear | Talk | Contributions 14:56, 7 February 2014 (UTC)
Present some literature that critiques conlangs and then we'll see how we'll work it in.User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 19:18, 7 February 2014 (UTC)
That's one thing. Another thing is that constructed languages are a rather broad field. Look at international auxiliary language and you'll find a criticism section. In the case of Esperanto there's even a separate article about it. However, constructed languages also include fictional languages, stealth languages, just to name a few, and criticism of auxlangs can hardly be applied to those. Take Klingon language or Dothraki language as a example. The fact that we aren't all rushing to learn them is of no importance here, since being learned by anybody is not their purpose. The fact that some people are learning them anyway is, in fact, nothing but a side effect. Criticism of Klingon could for example be: that language is way too human for an alien language, Japanese is more exotic, or: why should actors be forced to speak some alien language if the audience would have understood them better if they spoke English anyway. But that sort of criticism wouldn't apply to Esperanto, for example. My point being: a criticism section in this particular article should apply to constructed languages in general, criticism of individual languages or specific groups of languages is better off elsewhere. —IJzeren Jan Uszkiełtu? 22:03, 7 February 2014 (UTC)


Why Mondlango page has been deleted? It is not less notable than many other constructed languages. Could someone restore it?Cazaux (talk) 11:57, 2 October 2014 (UTC)

No. The article was based on spam. But you're free to nominate other non-notable conlangs for deletion. — kwami (talk) 02:29, 12 January 2015 (UTC)


I think this article should be moved to the plural. Anyone else? Gringo300 (talk) 20:57, 18 December 2015 (UTC)

Similar articles prefer the singular, afaics (there's almost certainly a guideline about that somewhere). Earlier today I was looking at Secundative language. So imho the title of this article is fine as-is. --Pi zero (talk) 00:06, 19 December 2015 (UTC)

Origin of "glossopoeia"[edit]

The term glossopoeia, coined by J. R. R. Tolkien, is also used to mean language construction, particularly construction of artistic languages.[3]

On the CONLANG list recently there has been a discussion about the origin of the term; a couple of people have searched certain of Tolkien's works ("A Secret Vice" and the published Letters) for "glossopoeia" and not found it, and a consensus seems to be emerging that the term wasn't coined (or rather, first used in that sense, as it has a more mundane sense in classical Greek) by Tolkien. Can anyone cite a use of the term by Tolkien? The earliest cite anyone has found so far is from 1983, in the zine Mythos: Seeking Truth Through Story, coined (or reinvented with a new sense) by amateur Tolkien scholar Steve Deyo, probably by analogy with Tolkien's term "mythopoeia".[4] --Jim Henry (talk) 13:35, 30 May 2011 (UTC)

Steve Deyo has written me an email confirming that he coined this term in that article. --Jim Henry (talk) 04:31, 14 July 2016 (UTC)

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Constructed language. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

As of February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete the "External links modified" sections if they want, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{sourcecheck}} (last update: 15 July 2018).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 03:23, 30 November 2016 (UTC)

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Constructed language. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

As of February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete the "External links modified" sections if they want, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{sourcecheck}} (last update: 15 July 2018).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 13:35, 12 August 2017 (UTC)

Error in intro section[edit]

There is a sentence that contradicts itself regarding speakers of Interlingua (problem areas bolded):

"Conlang speakers are rare. For example, the Hungarian census of 2001 found 4570 speakers of Esperanto, 10 of Romanid, two each of Interlingua and Ido and one each of Idiom Neutral and Mundolinco.[4] The Russian census of 2010 found 992 speakers of Esperanto, nine of Ido, one of Edo and no speakers of Slovio or Interlingua — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 00:44, 31 May 2018 (UTC)

Where is the contradiction? The first census is about Hungary, the second one about Russia. —IJzeren Jan Uszkiełtu? 13:52, 21 July 2018 (UTC)

A Priori vs. A Posteriori Section Is a Disaster[edit]

The section must be changed or removed, as it goes beyond being useless, and wanders into the territory of misinformation. The terms are defined quite clearly, but then given subgroupings that are not subordinate, but rather are different classifications. It would be as if saying "Sports can be divided into games that use a ball and those that don't. Of those that use a ball, there are men's sports and women's sports. Of those that don't, there are team sports and individual sports." I am going to attempt a rewrite of the section, but I suspect pushback simply because the changes will be drastic.

In short, while the main definition is correct, the following needs to be stated:

  1. Whether or not a language is artistic has nothing to do with it being a priori or a posteriori.
  2. The terms "controlled", "naturalistic", and "schematic", as used in the article, define auxlangs, not a posteriori languages.
  3. Many of the examples have been incorrectly categorized, leading to absolute confusion as to the terms themselves.

If my edit isn't liked, it would be fine if someone else rewrote it, so long as the above three elements are captured, and the definition is retained. DavidJPeterson (talk) 18:35, 3 June 2019 (UTC)