Hoi,
So we need words like table in that language.
Thanks,
GerardM
On 9 December 2017 at 21:17, Milos Rancic <[email protected]> wrote:
> On Sat, Dec 9, 2017 at 8:23 PM, MF-Warburg <[email protected]>
> wrote:
> > It seems important to me to have some sort of rule which ensures
> consistency
> > wrt artificial languages. Otherwise it will give reason to all sorts of
> > unnecessary complaints.
>
> I suppose that we will have in the near future a number of well
> elaborated constructed languages, no matter if their intention would
> be fun or taking role as a language for more useful, more likely
> particular than general purpose. (For example, Slovio is interesting,
> as it requires writers educated in Slovio, but non-educated native
> Slavic speakers to read it; but it has copyright issues.)
>
> Counting that there are no copyright and similar issues, I would
> define it approximately in the following way: To be considered as
> eligible, a constructed language has to have:
>
> 1) a clear communication purpose (i.e. the intention of creation the
> language is not to make an art piece more elaborated, but to be used
> as a mean for communication; Klingon, Quenya and Dothraki would pass
> just with the native speakers OR with the post factum change of the
> intention and creation of relevant support for that language, which
> makes them a "regular" constructed language; I could imagine Klingon
> could pass based on the last rule);
>
> 2) full basic dictionary;
>
> 3) a method for creative usage (i.e. creating the new words; somebody
> has to be able to create an article about quantum mechanics in that
> language, no matter if that language doesn't have those words
> initially); if it doesn't allow users to create the new words, it has
> to have a body which would promptly deal with the needs to write an
> encyclopedia;
>
> 4) (add your requirement here; I suppose Michael, Jan and Andre could help
> here)
>
> 5) Additionally, that should be verified by at least two linguists
> chosen by LangCom (this is a general linguistic task; unlike in the
> case of verifying the content, a linguist verifying the *language*
> doesn't need to speak the language).
>
> _______________________________________________
> Langcom mailing list
> [email protected]
> https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/langcom
>
_______________________________________________
Langcom mailing list
[email protected]
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/langcom
