As there has been no opposition to this proposal in a month, I am going to implement it.
Am Do., 6. Feb. 2025 um 10:46 Uhr schrieb Jan van Steenbergen < ijzeren....@gmail.com>: > If I may... > > I agree with the proposal to substitute "artificial" with "constructed", > but I'd like to point out that terminology in this field is not fully > standardized. For example, some authors use the term "constructed language" > only for languages created for artistic or private purposes. Besides, > languages tend to handle the issue differently. In German, for example, > international auxiliary languages are generally called "Plansprachen". Most > authors, including myself, treat "constructed language" and "artificial > language" as synonyms. > > Also, the common belief that there is some kind of binary dichotomy > between natural and constructed languages is misplaced. Ultimately, every > language is, to some degree, the result of deliberate human intervention. > In other words, every language can be placed somewhere on a scale of > artificiality, and it is not like a thick red line can be drawn between > both extremes. As a matter of fact, some languages usually considered > natural (especially reinvented languages and certain standardization > proposals) can as easily be considered constructed; some of them even have > a single author and a year of creation. Modern Hebrew is a good example of > a language that really belongs to the grey area of languages that are > neither fully natural nor fully artificial. > > Best regards, > Jan van Steenbergen > _______________________________________________ > Langcom mailing list -- langcom@lists.wikimedia.org > To unsubscribe send an email to langcom-le...@lists.wikimedia.org >
_______________________________________________ Langcom mailing list -- langcom@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe send an email to langcom-le...@lists.wikimedia.org
