I suppose you have strong evidence that LFN has more native speakers than Klingon or you are just an ordinary liar?
On Sat, Dec 9, 2017 at 4:45 PM, Gerard Meijssen <[email protected]> wrote: > Hoi, > In an alternate universe maybe. > Thanks, > GerardM > > Op za 9 dec. 2017 om 13:24 schreef Milos Rancic <[email protected]> >> >> I've just said that Klingon makes more sense than LFN, as it actually has >> native speakers. >> >> >> On Dec 9, 2017 06:55, "Gerard Meijssen" <[email protected]> wrote: >>> >>> Hoi, >>> We had Klingon at one time.. Do you really consider revisiting that ? >>> Thanks, >>> GerardM >>> >>> On 8 December 2017 at 23:22, Milos Rancic <[email protected]> wrote: >>>> >>>> On Fri, Dec 8, 2017 at 10:58 PM, MF-Warburg <[email protected]> >>>> wrote: >>>> > Can we, by the way, define more detailed criteria for which artificial >>>> > languages should be eligible? >>>> >>>> Agreed. If we count native speakers, Klingon is, AFAIK, immediately >>>> after Esperanto. >>>> >>>> _______________________________________________ >>>> Langcom mailing list >>>> [email protected] >>>> https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/langcom >>> >>> >>> >>> _______________________________________________ >>> Langcom mailing list >>> [email protected] >>> https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/langcom >>> >> _______________________________________________ >> Langcom mailing list >> [email protected] >> https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/langcom > > > _______________________________________________ > Langcom mailing list > [email protected] > https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/langcom > _______________________________________________ Langcom mailing list [email protected] https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/langcom
